Hi Joel,
On 4/7/22, 1:18 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote:
Acee, I am missing something basic.
It seems to me that it would be very wrong for the LSR YANG module to
demand a change to an important type because it turns out that type
doesn't mean what LSR thought it meant. Such an error is LSR's problem,
not the underlying modules.
There seem to be two fixes. If it is for some reason imperitive to us
the same typedef we have been using, then put in text / patterns /
restrictions saying that this model MUST NOT use the scope field.
More reasonably, use a different typedef in this model.
Point me to a usages where the zone is actually desired and supported?
Acee
Yours,
Joel
On 4/7/2022 1:04 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 4/7/22, 1:02 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:11 AM tom petch <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Rob Wilton
(rwilton)
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: 07 April 2022 10:25
> > >
> > > I basically agree with Acee, and I think that we should do (b):
> > >
> > > b) Change the types as suggested and accept that doing
so breaks
> > > modules where zone indexes are meaningful.
> > >
> > > <tp>
> > >
> > > I am concerned that such behaviour will damage the standing of
the IETF at
> > > large.
> > >
> > >
> > MAY for the client means MUST for the server.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
> But I'm also not sure I understand what the real problem is. Just
b/c
> the type allows a zone doesn't mean that all leafs that use this type
> MUST support a zone. Compare with the value "0.0.0.0". It is a
legal
> value according to the pattern, but it will not be valid in all
places
> where this type is used. And even when an implementation supports
> zones, it will not accept all legal (according to the pattern) values
> for the zone index. Perhaps the solution is to explain this
> better in the description?
>
>
> > But if no servers actually support it, because the YANG does not
match
> > the operational requirements, then is it really a MUST requirement?
> >
> > This seems like a bugfix, and the worst thing the IETF could do
wrt/
> > standing
> > is to force the world to change every module that imports the
typedef.
> > Since many people were not aware of the full syntax, it is not
clear that
> > the WG intent was to include a zone.
>
> It is pretty clear IMO that this was not a mistake. The text
> explicitly says:
>
> The IPv4 address may include a zone
> index, separated by a % sign.
>
> >
> > Seems like a bugfix to a pattern, like we have done several times
already.
>
> I don't think this is a bugfix.
>
> A bugfix for the requirements for the base types that requires fixing the
pattern and description.
>
> Acee
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > > We clearly laid down rules as to what updates were regarded as
compatible
> > > so that authors of software could be confident that their work
was robust
> > > and future-proof. We did it with SNMP, inter alia, and we have
carried
> > > that forward with YANG. To tear up that understanding ,
creating who knows
> > > how much disruption, can only harm the standing of IETF.
> > >
> > > Much has been said about how implementations have assumed that
the address
> > > types do not include a zone but no evidence has been put forward
for that
> > > assertion.
> > >
> > > I have always assumed that software uses libraries and that the
libraries
> > > have been written with an understanding of the specifications
such that if
> > > a zone is received over the wire in conformance with the
specification but
> > > where the display, field or such like does not allow for a zone,
then,
> > > tolerant of what to accept, the zone is silently discarded and
the address
> > > is used without the zone. But, like the assertion that keeping
the zone
> > > will cause who knows what damage, I have not done the research to
> > > substantiate that assumption.
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > > I appreciate that this is an NBC change, but I believe that this
is the
> > > most intuitive definition and is the best choice longer term. I
also note
> > > that the base ipv4-address/ipv6-address types in OpenConfig
(where they use
> > > the OC copy/version of inet-types and not ietf-inet-types) don't
allow a
> > > zone to be specified and assumes the default zone. They have
separate
> > > types in cases where a zone is allowed to be specified, i.e.,
aligned to
> > > what (b) proposes.
> > >
> > > For modules that are using/wanting zones (if any), then they can
migrate
> > > to the new explicit zone type.
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning,
> > > if it keeps its import "revision-or-derived" extension, would
also allow
> > > such modules to indicate the dependency on the updated
revision/definition
> > > of ietf-inet-types.yang.
> > >
> > > Of course, the description associated with the updated
> > > ietf-inet-types.yang revision should clearly highly the
> > > non-backwards-compatible change to the types.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jürgen
Schönwälder
> > > Sent: 07 April 2022 08:35
> > > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action:
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
> > >
> > > Here is roughly what happened:
> > >
> > > - RFC 6020 (published ~12 years ago) introduced the ip-address
> > > type. It included an optional zone index part since zone
indexes
> > > are necessary in certain situations (e.g., configuring services
> > > listening on link-local addresses or clients connecting to
services
> > > listening on link-local addresses).
> > >
> > > - RFC 6991 (published ~9 years ago) added the ip-address-no-zone
types
> > > since people felt that it is useful to also an ip address type
> > > without the optional zone part for situations where a zone is
not
> > > applicable. The name 'ip-address-no-zone' was picked since the
name
> > > ip-address was already taken.
> > >
> > > I understand that the names resulting from this evolution of the
YANG
> > > module confuse people not looking up the type definitions. Let
me note
> > > that using a type allowing for an optional zone for a leaf that
never
> > > needs a zone is not a fatal error (its like using an int where a
short
> > > is sufficient) while using a type not allowing for a zone for a
leaf
> > > that may need zones is a fatal error (using a short where an int
is
> > > required) requiring an update of the definition of the leaf to
fix.
> > >
> > > What are our options?
> > >
> > > a) Do nothing and accept that types are called as they are.
> > > b) Change the types as suggested and accept that doing so breaks
> > > modules where zone indexes are meaningful.
> > > c) Deprecate the types and create a new module defining new types
> > > so that modules can opt-in to use better names.
> > > d) Deprecate the -no-zone types and move back to have a single
> > > type for IP addresses.
> > >
> > > Any other options?
> > >
> > > How are we going to pick between them?
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:02:23PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee)
wrote:
> > > > Jürgen and netmod WG, +IESG,
> > > >
> > > > It is not just the IETF models that are using the
inet:ip-address for
> > > the standard IPv4/IPv6 addresses without zones. Every vendor’s
native
> > > models and the OpenConfig models use the base types and expect
the standard
> > > IP address notation. If we don’t fix this, it is something that
people can
> > > point to as another example of the IETF being out of touch with
reality.
> > > >
> > > > I thought about more, and it might make the backward
compatibility
> > > easier if we just leave the existing ip-address-no-zone,
> > > ipv4-address-no-zone, and ipv6-address-no-zone types and add
*-zone types
> > > for the remote possibility that someone actually wants to
include the
> > > zone. In the existing RFC 6991 BIS document, we could merely
remove the
> > > zone from the ip-address, ipv4-address, and ipv6-address types
and classify
> > > this as we would any other bug fix. While including the zone was
the
> > > original intent of the base types, this is what those of us who
work on
> > > software products would classify as a requirements bug.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Acee
> > > >
> > > > From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]>
> > > > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:21 PM
> > > > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email protected]>, Andy
> > > Bierman <[email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
> > > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action:
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:02 PM Jürgen Schönwälder <
> > > [email protected]<mailto:
> > > [email protected]>> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 10:03:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The best outcome would be to fix ip-address to not include
the zone,
> > > > > > introduce ip-address-zone, and deprecate
ip-address-no-zone. My take
> > > all
> > > > > > the is that all the existing usages do not require zone
and this
> > > would be a
> > > > > > fix as opposed to a change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't think this will harm our implementations.
> > > > > The type is still string. The pattern will change but that
is handled
> > > by a
> > > > > library.
> > > > > Whatever pattern is used will get handled the same way.
> > > >
> > > > Either a zone is allowed to be present or it is not, this does
make a
> > > > difference, its not a cosmetic change.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > True. The code will probably accept the pattern then fail
trying to use
> > > the string.
> > > > If the client sends the form with a zone.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The same problem exists for 'date' and 'date-no-zone' types,
> > > > > but they are not used very much.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we should call types a, b, c, and so on - this may
force
> > > > people to read the descriptions. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > For some reason, the smarter the person, the less likely they
are to
> > > > read any of the documentation before using some software.
> > > > I call it the "it should work the way I would design it"
phenomenon :-)
> > > >
> > > > You have to admit that Acee's suggestion is more intuitive
than the
> > > current
> > > > definitions.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly an NBC change.
> > > > IMO it is more useful to put some YANG extension magic in
these specific
> > > typedefs
> > > > than just bumping a major revision number. This is a great
use-case for
> > > the version DT.
> > > >
> > > > There probably is no solution path where nobody has to change
any YANG
> > > or any code
> > > > and everything still works.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /js
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jürgen Schönwälder 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/>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jürgen Schönwälder 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/>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Lsr mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
