Creating lots of special rules makes me feel uncomfortable. Is there evidence that people reduce state value spaces a lot and in isolation, i.e., they just rev a module to reduce some state value spaces?
/js On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:00:42PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: > The key focus here is *if* the author does remove the enum, then how should > we label the revision -> BC or NBC ? > > RFC7950 does indeed say that is NBC. But do we actually want that for state > for: > - removing an enum > - shrinking a range > - changing a pattern in a manner that reduces the value space > > We're worried that will create too much "NBC noise" when it really in > practice won't be an issue at all for clients. Client just won't receive the > old values from the larger value space anymore. So why flag this as NBC and > make people do work to analyze it ? > > Jason > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 9:53 AM > > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]> > > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Client validation text [was RE: YANG Versioning > > Weekly Call Minutes - 2021-04-06] > > > > I do not recall that removing an enum was ever an issue in > > practice. If an enum value is not used anymore, you leave the old enum > > value and it will slowly but surely not be used anymore. (An enum > > statement even has a status statement, so you can deprecate or > > obsolete enum values.) That said, if the module owner decides to > > remove the value, then this is indeed non-backwards compatible. (And > > removing an enum paves the way to reallocate the associated number, > > and be it by accident later again. I suggest people think twice > > before removing enums.) > > > > /js > > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:43:09PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > > wrote: > > > Urghh. I reversed my example. I should have said removing an enum. Let > > me reword: > > > > > > One key example is this: 7950 says that removing an enum from an > > enumeration leaf is NBC (and that applies to state). But that may not really > > be how most implementations would want to treat state. Would we really > > want to flag a module as non backwards compatible when a state leaf has an > > enum removed? Wouldn't that create a lot of unnecessary noise? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 9:39 AM > > > > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Client validation text [was RE: YANG Versioning > > > > Weekly Call Minutes - 2021-04-06] > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:32:15PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - > > CA/Ottawa) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > One key example is this: 7950 says that adding another enum to an > > > > enumeration leaf is NBC (and that applies to state). But that may not > > really > > > > be how most implementations would want to treat state. Would we > > really > > > > want to flag a module as non backwards compatible when a state leaf > > gets an > > > > additional enum? Wouldn't that create a lot of unnecessary noise? > > > > > > > > I read this in RFC 7950: > > > > > > > > o An "enumeration" type may have new enums added, provided the > > old > > > > enums's values do not change. Note that inserting a new enum > > > > before an existing enum or reordering existing enums will result > > > > in new values for the existing enums, unless they have explicit > > > > values assigned to them. > > > > > > > > What do you want this to change to? > > > > > > > > /js > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
