Early Review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-09
Requested rev. 09 (document currently at 15)
Type Early Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2020-07-16
Requested 2020-06-25
Requested by Liang Xia
Authors Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy.K, Ehud Doron, chenmeiling, Jon Shallow
Draft last updated 2020-06-30
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -09 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -10 by Nagendra Nainar (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -14 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
There's a big YANG data model in this DOTS telemetry draft, so we need the YANG doctor to help us to review them for the quality control. Thanks!
Assignment Reviewer Jan Lindblad 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dots-telemetry-09-yangdoctors-early-lindblad-2020-06-30
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/Uqq_V_MpVHSIYPLIMLEPwxF8RAk
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 15)
Review result Not Ready
Review completed: 2020-06-30


This is the YD early review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry as requested by the DOTS WG.

The ietf-dots-telemetry YANG module is not like other YANG modules. It specifically states that it does not pertain to NETCONF/RESTCONF management, but is only meant to be mapped to a specific CoAP based protocol "dots-signal-channel" created by the DOTS WG. The draft-ietf-dots-telemetry says in section 4.7:

   The DOTS telemetry module (Section 9.1) is not intended to be used
   via NETCONF/RESTCONF for DOTS server management purposes.  It serves
   only to provide a data model and encoding, but not a management data
   model.  DOTS servers are allowed to update the non-configurable 'ro'
   entities in the responses of DOTS telemetry messages.

While this approach is highly uncommon, after giving it some thought, I believe this approach could be useful to client and server implementors. However, I find two fundamental problems in the particular way this has been done in this case. I believe the problems are fixable, but may involve updating existing DOTS RFCs.

#1) YANG data declarations used as message bodies

You can define your own message types with whatever content you desire in YANG. Just use rpc/action and notification statements. This draft does not do that, but instead defines message bodies as if they were top level YANG config elements. This obviously violates the aras of YANG that speak about data stores, accessible data trees, and what not. Apart from confusing experienced YANG users, the meaning of statements like "config false" is suddenly most unclear when the foundations of YANG are disregarded.

In my opinion the top level of the module needs to be rewritten to use proper YANG rpc/action and notification statements. The existing message bodies, and the way they are augmented, could all work very well. It's just the framework around them that isn't sound.

Unfortunately the problematic top level structures of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry are based on structures imported from ietf-dots-signal-channel.yang, which is already published in DOTS RFC 8782. I have not been able to find any YD review of this module, so I would suspect none were ever performed. To make the DOTS signal-channel framework usable, I would suggest obsoleting RFC8782 and write a bis with an improved YANG action/notification based foundation. The number of changed lines in the YANG can probably be kept rather small.

#2) Missing pieces in YANG to dots-signal-channel protocol mapping

The draft-ietf-dots-telemetry references CoAP RFC 7959, which defines a number of basic management operations (GET, PUT, POST, ...), and CBOR RFC 7049 content encoding, with the draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12 addendum for how YANG data is to be encoded in CBOR. Unfortunately, a protocol specification that consists of these three references is not quite complete. Since this is an early review, it may be that the draft authors are already planning to pull the protocol specification up a notch, or I may have missed some piece(s) of the puzzle. In any case, a protocol specification on par with what is available for RESTCONF or NETCONF would be required.

The dots-signal-channel specification in RFC 8782 makes an Informative Reference to draft specification for a protocol called CoMI (draft-ietf-core-comi-09), which attempts to take on the YANG to CoAP mapping. One way of filling in the blanks for dots-signal-channel might be to leverage the CoMI work. Fixing #1 would be required to leverage CoMI.

Currently, dots-signal-channel protocol specification (taken as the sum of CoAP, CBOR and draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12) is missing information about operation semantics, operation encoding, error handling, for example. RFC 8040 sections 5, 6, 7 or RFC 6241 sections 4, 7, 8 contain the sort of information I'm looking for.

#3) Other than that, probably good

Other than issues #1 and #2 above, the module seems to be in pretty good shape. Some content is hard to judge since the intended meaning of config true/false for example is unclear, so a new review will be required after the fundamentals have been resolved. The module is both easy to read and conforms with IETF standards except as noted above, staying on the clean and simple side.