Hi -
On 2022-03-15 11:13 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
YANG update rules expect clients to be lenient about values they
received but did not expect. It is possible to debate that design
choice but this surely is not an errata, hence this errata should
be rejected.
I agree that the proposed erratum should be rejected. The text
of RFC 7950 says what the working group clearly intended, and is
consistent with the approach taken in the SNMP SMI, for whatever
that might be worth.
Randy
/js
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:21:12PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950,
"The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6885
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: R Kaja Mohideen <[email protected]>
Section: 11
Original Text
-------------
A definition in a published module may be revised in any of the
following ways:
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.
o A "bits" type may have new bits added, provided the old bit
positions do not change. Note that inserting a new bit before an
existing bit or reordering existing bits will result in new
positions for the existing bits, unless they have explicit
positions assigned to them.
Corrected Text
--------------
See Notes.
Notes
-----
When server is exposing updated yang model as mentioned in Section 11,
particularly with enums, bits having new items - client systems that are not
updated to use the new yang module will not be able to recognize and use the
new values.
This is problematic when there are multiple clients and those systems are getting updated to catch
up with yang changes over time. Updated "Client A" recognizing new enum and using it
(update datastore with new value using edit-config), will make, old/not-yet-updated "Client
B" to encounter the new value (received as response of get-config) that it cannot work with.
So, the "backward compatible" ways of updating a yang module should consider
"multiple clients" scenario and make recommendations in such a way that clients are not
forced to update all at once.
Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC7950 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14)
--------------------------------------
Title : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
Publication Date : August 2016
Author(s) : M. Bjorklund, Ed.
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Network Modeling
Area : Operations and Management
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
