Hi -
On 2022-04-14 1:13 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
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)
Total agreement. I share your bewilderment that a standardization
organization would even consider deliberately breaking compatibility
to "fix" a non-problem, particularly a non-problem that has been widely
deployed for over a decade.
Randy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
