Add pagination support to TR‑547 reference implementation agreement.

[arthurMll]

Many practical TAPI deployments must handle large JSON responses out of queriying root contexts. Without pagination support, clients risk overwhelming memory or network resources when consuming full datasets. To address this, I think we should discuss how to add pagination requirements to the TR‑547 reference implementation agreement.

Proposal

• Adopt the YANG pagination model from “List Pagination for YANG‑driven Protocols” (draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination) and its RESTCONF mapping in draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination‑rc‑08
• Update TR‑547 APIs by introducing parameters:
  • limit
  • offset or cursor (to support stateless or stateful paging)
  • sort-by
  • where, direction
• Support consistent paging when dealing with operational datasets:
  • Optionally include snapshot (cursor) support for immutable pagination views .
• Ensure compliance:
  • Register any new RESTCONF capabilities and media types, e.g., application/yang-data+xml-list.

[nigel-r-davis]

To provide a little more clarification:

• TAPI provides a streaming solution via TR-548 that supports discovery does not have a scale issue
• TAPI TR-547 offers a method to get UUIDs and then the entity. This certainly works for Nodes and Devices. There may be a concern for connections.
  • Note that access ports are accessed via the Device.

It would be helpful to see the timing and data scale. Perhaps that could be added

[rcasellas]

Hi

I commented this option about pagination a while ago during a call meeting. I think it's worth adding it in a RIA as an optional feature, and can easily be back ported, even if we only support a couple of query parameters. I don't think it's about the benefits of streaming versus plain restconf , but about extending and improving existing restconf support

One of the added features of supporting this is the fact that now get operations on lists become legal. This would, on the other hand, deprecate some existing API calls and work arounds like doing the get on a parent container (e.g. context) with a fieldsv query parameter and allow performing the get on the service-interface-point list directly

There are already a few different implementations of listing and pagination options, so standardizing 547 on a (subset) of the ietf drafts would be my choice.

Just my thoughts
R

[roshan-joyce-fujitsu]

Hi @arthurMll @nigel-r-davis @rcasellas @bcjohnso99

I did a study of draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination and draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination‑rc‑08.

I captured some thoughts and ideas into onmi2025.RJ.001_TAPI_pagination.pptx.

Please review.

[rcasellas]

Hi all, IMHO, pagination is a requirement for some operators and it seems there are already conflicting and not compatible approaches. Thanks Roshan for preparing these slides. I also believe aligning (to some extent) to the IETF draft seems a good approach. Happy to discuss in the plenary, but in summary, an incremental approach could be: * Enable GET for list nodes (keep ‘fields’ for backwards compat) * Maybe initially adopt the basic mínimum to support pagination, even if the RFC mandates wider support As a comment, in the last slide, on the examples. If the target node is “node” (with query parameter limit and cursor) should the response be { “tapi-topology:node” : [ { }, { } ] } I am not a fan of RFC7952 metadata, but it is not clear to me section 5.2.2. adding annotation to list entries (it is not the same as annotation to lists, enabled with pagination) RFC7952 seems to only condier “data nodes” and AFAIK a list is not “a data node” (a list entry is) Thanks Ramon From: roshan-joyce-fujitsu ***@***.***> Sent: viernes, 5 de septiembre de 2025 7:53 To: Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI ***@***.***> Cc: rcasellas ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI] Add pagination support to TR‑547 reference implementation agreement. (Issue #651) roshan-joyce-fujitsu left a comment (Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI#651) <#651 (comment)> Hi @arthurMll <https://github.com/arthurMll> @nigel-r-davis <https://github.com/nigel-r-davis> @rcasellas <https://github.com/rcasellas> @bcjohnso99 <https://github.com/bcjohnso99> I did a study of draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination/> and draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination‑rc‑08 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination-rc/> . I captured some thoughts and ideas into onmi2025.RJ.001_TAPI_pagination.pptx <https://github.com/Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI-Activities/blob/main/ContributionsForDiscussions/onmi2025.RJ.001_TAPI_pagination.pptx> . Please review. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#651 (comment)> , or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACQOMXIFOSKCZKANZOLYKRD3REQNLAVCNFSM6AAAAAB7VKKU7SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTENJXGE2TGMJTGE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rcasellas]

To elabote a bit more, sorry As per example: GET /restconf/ds/ietf-datastores:running/example-social:members/member?where=//stats//joined[starts-with(timestamp,'2020')]&sort-by=time\ stamp&direction=backwards&offset=2&limit=2&sublist-limit=1 HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com { "example-social:member": [ // the GET i son the list as a data resource { "@": { "ietf-list-pagination:remaining": 1, "ietf-list-pagination:locale": "en_US" }, I am not a fan of “annotating” as part of the first element, but I am not sure thee are Good alternatives Regards Ramon From: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> Sent: viernes, 5 de septiembre de 2025 11:34 To: 'Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI' ***@***.***>; 'Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI' ***@***.***> Subject: RE: [Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI] Add pagination support to TR‑547 reference implementation agreement. (Issue #651) Hi all, IMHO, pagination is a requirement for some operators and it seems there are already conflicting and not compatible approaches. Thanks Roshan for preparing these slides. I also believe aligning (to some extent) to the IETF draft seems a good approach. Happy to discuss in the plenary, but in summary, an incremental approach could be: * Enable GET for list nodes (keep ‘fields’ for backwards compat) * Maybe initially adopt the basic mínimum to support pagination, even if the RFC mandates wider support As a comment, in the last slide, on the examples. If the target node is “node” (with query parameter limit and cursor) should the response be { “tapi-topology:node” : [ { }, { } ] } I am not a fan of RFC7952 metadata, but it is not clear to me section 5.2.2. adding annotation to list entries (it is not the same as annotation to lists, enabled with pagination) RFC7952 seems to only condier “data nodes” and AFAIK a list is not “a data node” (a list entry is) Thanks Ramon From: roshan-joyce-fujitsu ***@***.*** ***@***.***> > Sent: viernes, 5 de septiembre de 2025 7:53 To: Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI ***@***.*** ***@***.***> > Cc: rcasellas ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >; Mention ***@***.*** ***@***.***> > Subject: Re: [Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI] Add pagination support to TR‑547 reference implementation agreement. (Issue #651) roshan-joyce-fujitsu left a comment (Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI#651) <#651 (comment)> Hi @arthurMll <https://github.com/arthurMll> @nigel-r-davis <https://github.com/nigel-r-davis> @rcasellas <https://github.com/rcasellas> @bcjohnso99 <https://github.com/bcjohnso99> I did a study of draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination/> and draft‑ietf‑netconf‑list‑pagination‑rc‑08 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination-rc/> . I captured some thoughts and ideas into onmi2025.RJ.001_TAPI_pagination.pptx <https://github.com/Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI-Activities/blob/main/ContributionsForDiscussions/onmi2025.RJ.001_TAPI_pagination.pptx> . Please review. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#651 (comment)> , or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACQOMXIFOSKCZKANZOLYKRD3REQNLAVCNFSM6AAAAAB7VKKU7SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTENJXGE2TGMJTGE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >

[roshan-joyce-fujitsu]

Thanks @rcasellas for the review. Yes, the JSON structure of the examples were not correct. I have now updated them.
Also, in the examples, I 've updated the representation of metadata as per the examples in section A.3 of draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination.