Hi Acee,
That makes sense.
The other thing that I think that we have got wrong is modelling regex
pattern statements. I think that it would be much better if these were
written to be less exhaustive and much simpler.
E.g. the "route distinguisher" pattern in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-09 is defined as this:
pattern
'(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
+ '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
+ '[0-5]?[0-9]{0,3}[0-9]):(429496729[0-5]|'
+ '42949672[0-8][0-9]|'
+ '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|'
+ '42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|'
+ '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|429[0-3][0-9]{6}|'
+ '42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|'
+ '[0-3]?[0-9]{0,8}[0-9]))|'
+ '(1:((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|'
+ '25[0-5])\.){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|'
+ '1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])):(6553[0-5]|'
+ '655[0-2][0-9]|'
+ '65[0-4][0-9]{2}|6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
+ '[0-5]?[0-9]{0,3}[0-9]))|'
+ '(2:(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8][0-9]|'
+ '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|'
+ '429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|'
+ '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|'
+ '429[0-3][0-9]{6}|42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|'
+ '[0-3]?[0-9]{0,8}[0-9]):'
+ '(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
+ '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
+ '[0-5]?[0-9]{0,3}[0-9]))|'
+ '(6(:[a-fA-F0-9]{2}){6})|'
+ '(([3-57-9a-fA-F]|[1-9a-fA-F][0-9a-fA-F]{1,3}):'
+ '[0-9a-fA-F]{1,12})';
}
But I think that it would be much easier to read, and quite possibly
more performant to execute, if the pattern regex was written something
like the following:
pattern:
'(0:[0-9]{1,5}:[0-9]{1,10})|
(1:([0-9]{1,3}\.){4}:[0-9]{1,5})|
(2:[0-9]{1,10}:0:[0-9]{1,5})|
(6(:[a-fA-F0-9]{2}){6})';
Of course, this would allow more invalid values, but most servers would
be expected to reject those when it converts them into an internal
binary format any way.
What do you, and others, think?
Thanks,
Rob
On 21/08/2017 15:01, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi William, Rob, Andy,
Given their limited usefulness and the detriments, perhaps we should
discourage the creation of new submodules in RFC6087Bis.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/21/17, 9:44 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ivory, William"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of william.iv...@intl.att.com> wrote:
Hi Rob,
That would make it very hard to update existing 1.x YANG models to use
new features in YANG 2.x if they used submodules. Maybe that's something
that no one would ever consider doing anyway, or maybe YANG 1.1 already
has similar differences to 1.0? I had (perhaps naively) assumed that you
could migrate a namespace / model from YANG 1.0 to 2.0?
Regards,
William
-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton
Sent: 21 August 2017 11:24
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in
YANG 1.0
On 09/08/2017 16:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:01:09PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I remember that in early stages of YANG there was some irrational
fear of introducing too many namespaces, and submodules may be a
consequence of it. As you write, submodules provide no benefits
whatsoever in terms of modularity, but the overhead in terms of
metadata, IANA registration etc. is pretty much the same as for
modules.
In case YANG 2.0 is ever done, I suggest someone files a proposal to
remove submodules if the cost/benefit ratio is at odds. There is
nothing wrong with removing stuff that has been found problematic.
I agree.
I've added
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_netmod-2Dw
g_yang-2Dnext_issues_26&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ
2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=l7c4IPL049A2bVVO14fyBMly211xU61xSHgPlAT7ow
I&s=-kR4fUtXArQy0RwWb32DpT1bP4X_cNqt2zJVoC0JiX8&e=
Rob
The motivation for submodules was that organizations maintaining large
modules with multiple people can do so without having to mess around
with tools like m4 scripts to produce a single module from 'snippets'
and to avoid integration surprises. But perhaps using m4 scripts and
decent version control systems (that can integrate and compile on
checkin) is indeed cheaper than having submodules part of the YANG
language itself.
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_
listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwky
XmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=l7c4IPL049A2bVVO14fyBMly211xU61xSHgPlAT7owI&s=t7vG
IH8ABuAm00e-bkSowD9eawModGq0N2OkjANtpYI&e=
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
