On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 9:44 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Andy Bierman < > [email protected]> > Sent: 14 April 2022 22:25 > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:41 PM Randy Presuhn < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > Hi - > > On 2022-04-14 1:33 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:13 PM Jürgen Schönwälder > > <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>> 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. > > > > > > A 2 year advance notice is way more than normal in the open source world. > > > > There does not seem to be any consensus on the general issues or the > > specific typedef, > > or even agreement that OpenConfig (and RFC 4001) got it right and IETF > > got it wrong. > > > > One set of data models treats a zone index as the normal case, not the > > exception, > > and the other treats a zone index as the exception. > > > > Spinning all the YANG modules that use these typedefs is not going to > > happen, > > and not even clear that would help with multi-SDO integration, given the > > disconnect > > on the design of the typedefs. > ... > > Why do you believe it is necessary to revise all the YANG modules that > use the current typedefs? Have any interoperability problems resulted > from the use of the current definitions? The argument that not changing > the substance of the current definitions would somehow result in the > need to modify the modules that have used the current definitions is > a paper tiger, I think. > > There seems to be many modules where ip-address was used > when the intention of the WG was to use ip-address-no-zone. > > <tp> > Well, we really do not know. We do know that in the past two years or so, > when the meaning of ip-address has been pointed out to YANG module authors, > most, but not all, have changed to the no-zone format, suggesting that they > were unfamiliar with the use of zones in IPv6. But they may have got it > wrong, The flavour of RFC4007 is that from now on, all IPv6 addresses will > include a zone in their representation but since that is mostly the default > zone and the default zone can be omitted then we do not often see zones in > the representation. To quote RFC4007 > ' This is accomplished by assigning, within the node, > a distinct "zone index" to each zone of the same scope to which that > node is attached, and by allowing all internal uses of an address to > be qualified by a zone index. > ' > All internal uses! that is what an implementer should be doing with YANG > or with anything else. > > I can support just "part 1" of the proposal. Total solution: - provide guidelines for YANG authors and developers - base + options approach vs. full + without-options approach - ip-address vs. ip-address-no-zone I retract support for my own previous suggestion of allowing the zone index to be ignored. (!) There should not be any special exceptions for a few typedefs. RFC 6241 is very clear about the server requirements for returning <ok> for an <edit-config> request. No further comment in ietf-inet-types is needed. > Tom Petch > > Andy > Tom Petch > > The easiest solution is to do nothing, and force the server implementers > to deal with it. > A server is obligated to check all client input. > Any request with a zone index can be rejected instead of accepted. > This solution is compatible with the OpenConfig typedef (unless zone index > actually used). > > > > Randy > > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
