On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:48:18PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > The proposal is for a 2 year phase to change modules > that really do want a zone index. It is not blindly removing the zone > index.
People not reading type definitions will also not read a warning signs. This is blindly removing the zone index in two years, I hardly see a difference from doing the same (damage) today. Lets start with one of the oldest modules affected, RFC 7317. The ietf-system module is using ip-address correctly (allowing DNS servers to be reachable via link-local addresses). So who is going to revise RFC 7317 in the two years? It would be strange to file an errata addressing a problem that will break the module in two years from now. In fact, there is no problem in RFC 7317, the problem is that we break the YANG module update rules that protect YANG modules from getting broken by updates to other YANG modules. And we do all of this because the name ip-address in hindsight is confusing? As you pointed out, an implementer can choose to ignore the optional zone index. However, if we remove the optional zone index, then implementors have no choice anymore since the data model by design prevents a meaningful implementation that works with link-local addresses. The key is that we have to trust data model writers to pick the right type. The assumption that every author who used ip-address really wanted ip-address-no-zone is very wild idea. /js (feeling lost in the modern software world) -- 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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
