[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: roots wasRe: filtering problem

To: "David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>, "Balazs Lengyel" <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: RE: roots wasRe: filtering problem
From: "Vincent Cridlig $vcridlig$" <vcridlig@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:23:45 +0200
Cc: <ietf@andybierman.com>, <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <01fd01c7ca8d$a6c4bfe0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
References: <4697981E.6010301@andybierman.com> <20070713.164342.74182725.mbj@tail-f.com> <047201c7c7c5$94d7bdc0$0601a8c0@pc6> <469F7FBF.3080009@ericsson.com> <01fd01c7ca8d$a6c4bfe0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>

I also think one root including mounted subtrees for various namespaces
is better than concatenated multiple roots. These multiple roots can
become children of a main root in any case.
Otherwise filters will have to apply to many roots, rather than one. How
do you build the reply in case nodes from various roots are selected...?
This can happen when namespaces are reused in various data models to
include data following a generic structure.

In Xpath, one missing thing IMO is how is built the reply after an Xpath
get-request. Xpath result is always a node set. Is the reply a
concatenation of the result nodes, or is it a reconstructed document
containing the selected nodes? I don't think this is a data model
dependant question. This aspect is defined in the case of subtree
filtering and it should be defined also for Xpath.

Regards,
Vincent


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of David B Harrington
Sent: vendredi 20 juillet 2007 7:20
To: 'Balazs Lengyel'; 'tom.petch'
Cc: ietf@andybierman.com; netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: roots wasRe: filtering problem

I think we need one root, so a get-config will be able to include
everything.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
ietfdbh@comcast.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:14 AM
> To: tom.petch
> Cc: ietf@andybierman.com; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
> 
> Hello,
> I think the datastore will often have multiple roots. I foresee/have 
> heard of the following situations that as I understand are all valid 
> in Netconf:
> 1) One root in one namespace, other namespaces might be mounted as 
> subtrees
> 2) One root per namespace
> 3) One namespace but with many root elements
> 4) Many roots in many namespaces
> 
> Case 2 can be viewed as a the single rooted case 1) where the first 
> branching is according to the namespace.
> 
> Case 3) and 4) I feel the filter should be applied to each root and 
> the results of these combined under the <data> element in the 
> get/get-config reply.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Balazs
> 
> tom.petch wrote:
> > This may relate to something that has been bugging me.
> > 
> > XPath is - at times - specified in terms of a root, and an
> XML document has a
> > single root element.  What is on the wire is an XML
> document but the datastore
> > is not - as Andy has pointed out before.
> > 
> > So what is an XPath filter being applied to?  The event as
> it would appear on
> > the wire as an XML document?  A conceptual document created
> in the datastore for
> > the purposes of filtering?  And if the latter, should we -
> we should! - specify
> > a root, either for the purposes of the examples or else for
> everything.
> > 
> > RFC4741 is quite discursive about roots but the
> notification I-D is silent; I
> > think that this last needs to change.
> > 
> > Tom Petch
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com>
> > To: <ietf@andybierman.com>
> > Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: filtering problem
> > 
> > 
> >> Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> There is another problem with filtering and the examples
> in sec 5: (!!!)
> >>>
> >>> The draft must say exactly where in the <notification> element 
> >>> that the <filter> is applied.  The current text does not
> say anything.
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >>> All the examples in sec. 5 are broken because the
> 'notification type'
> >>> layer is missing.
> >> I think it is ok.  Specify that the filter is applied to the 
> >> 'notificationContent' element as root (which is the
> abstract element).
> >>
> >>> The examples assume the filters can only be applied to a 
> >>> conceptual datastore, just like the <rpc> filter.
> >>>
> >>> However, the most commonly needed filter is going to be on the 
> >>> notification type itself!
> >>>
> >>> Example (w/o namespaces):
> >>>
> >>>    <notification>
> >>>      <configChange>
> >>>         <configChangeTime>date-time string...</configChangeTime>
> >>>         <configChangedBy>fred@example.com</configChangedBy>
> >>>         
> <configTarget>/interfaces/interface[name='eth0']</configTarget>
> >>>          ...
> >>>      </configChange>
> >>>    </notification>
> >>>
> >>> For simplicity, assume the manager just wants this one 
> >>> notification type. The filter is going to be
> something like:
> >>>
> >>>   <filter type="subtree">
> >>>     <configChange/>
> >>>   </filter>
> >> Yes, and IMO this is consistent with the examples.
> >>
> >>
> >> /martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> A filter for configChange just on a specific configTarget
> might be:
> >>>
> >>>   <filter type="subtree">
> >>>     <configChange>
> >>>       
> <configTarget>/interfaces/interface[name='eth0']</configTarget>
> >>>     </configChange>
> >>>   </filter>
> >>>
> >>> The way the draft is now does not reflect how notifications are 
> >>> actually structured.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org
with
> >>> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text
body.
> >>> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org
with
> >> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with 
> > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the

> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> 



--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
  - From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>

References:
- filtering problem
  - From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
- Re: filtering problem
  - From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
- roots wasRe: filtering problem
  - From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
- Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
  - From: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
- RE: roots wasRe: filtering problem
  - From: "David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
Next by Date: Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
Previous by thread: Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
Next by thread: Re: roots wasRe: filtering problem
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread