Re: [Netconf] comments on monitoring-08 draft

[Andy Bierman <andy at netconfcentral.com>]

Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman <andy at netconfcentral.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that the 'transport' identity was replaced
>> with a 'session-type' identity, and now the
>> /sessions/session/transport leaf
>> has been changed to a session-type leaf.  Yet no new
>> standard identities were added, and no semantics were
>> altered.
> 
> Right, this was just a name change of the identity.
> 
>> I object to this gratuitous incompatible change with -07.
>> It looks like some tweaks to support proprietary data models.
> 
> I don't understand how changing the name of a data type is a tweak for
> proprietary data models.
> 

Why was it changed at all?
The leaf changed names, not just the data type.

> The only reason we changed this name was that the old name,
> 'transport' has too many connotations.  In NETCONF, SSH is a
> transport, but for the purpose of this document we say that
> netconf-ssh is a session-type.

I can't find any discussion in the ML archive on this
topic.  Since all changes are this point are made
through WGLC resolution procedures,  I assume there was
a request to make this change, which was supported on
the mailing list and confirmed by one of the co-Chairs.

I can't find any of that email.
It looks like you just decided to change the
name of the identity and the leaf that uses it,
on your own.

We use the term "transport" in our NETCONF layer cake
diagram.  The term "session type" is nowhere to be found
in any of our RFCs or I-Ds.  The enums exactly match the
list of transports available for NETCONF.


> 
>> IMO, the vendor should augment the entry with a different leaf.
>> I really want to know the transport, not some meaningless
>> 'session type' that happens to look like a transport type.
>>
>> Also, I thought we were going to make the get-schema/input/version
>> parameter optional, and add a default=YANG to the format
>> parameter.
> 
> I agree with you.
> 

I never saw 1 objection to making this change.
Again, where is the email documenting the co-Chairs decision
to exclude this change?


>> Instead the /sessions/session/loginTime was
>> changed to mandatory.
> 
> Do you think it should be mandatory false?  If so, why?  Should any
> other leaf be mandatory true?
> 

this leaf is fine as mandatory.

> 
> /martin
> 

Andy