On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 04:16:04PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2015, at 15:49, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> Is it not? I would say it severely restricts the workflow for the data > >> model development. The ultra-conservative update rules essentially permit > >> only incremental changes to published modules. This would be fine if the > >> data model landscape already was reasonably stable. We are not that far > >> though, and everything is in flux. So I believe we would be much better > >> off with "release early - release often" strategy, which is made > >> impossible by the existing update rules. > >> > > > > There is a "release early - release often cycle" in the IETF process - > > it is called the Internet Drafts stage. Unfortunately, often people > > wait for things to stabilize (becoming an RFC) before implementing. I > > There are other disadvantages to I-Ds, for example that they have to be > updated every six months. It is actually funny: RFC used to mean "request for > comments", then later I-D acquired this role, so now we probably need a > "drafty draft" category. > > > assume we would have fewer but more solid data models if they would > > all come along with running code behind them (and ideally > 1 > > independent implementations). The problem might be "us" and not the > > update rules. > > The update rules mean that it is risky to publish a data model in an RFC. And > indeed, if there is a need, for one reason or another, to restructure, for > example, ietf-interfaces, it will have to become a new module > (ietf-interfaces-dash?) and the revision history will be broken. Doing this > more than once would turn the data model ecosystem into a mess.
No, it does not. > Backward compatibility is nice, but making it an absolute requirement, which > is even ingrained in the data modelling language specification, is IMO absurd. > I can grab interface statistics from pretty much all devices on my network using a single data model and SNMP. This is a feature, not a bug. You may find this not worth the effort or you might even find this absurd in todays world. I do not have to share this view. Can we stop here and get back to the I-D discussed in this thread? If you want to complain about absurd YANG update rules, please do so using a separate thread. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
