Re: [Lsr] [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Andy Bierman 
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:02 PM Jürgen Schönwälder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> 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 
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder 
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.
 
> 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. ;-)

/js

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder  Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Andy Bierman 
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:45 AM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder" <
> lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > [wg-member]
> >
> > The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address
> rather inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix
> inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was
> done in the MIB (RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive
> treatment on this point.
> >
>
> You either assume that all existing uses of inet:ip-address (inside
> the IETF and outside the IETF) are wrong or you are willing to break
> all the existing correct uses of inet:ip-address so that the type
> matches your expectations.
>
> The existing YANG update rules are pretty clear that changing the
> semantics of definitions is not allowed. Hence, all the WG could do
> is to deprecate ip-address and to introduce ip-address-zone.
>
> 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.

The same problem exists for 'date' and 'date-no-zone' types,
but they are not used very much.

But...

Since import-without-revision is used most of the time,
a module importing ietf-inet-types will get what?
Very implementation-specific, that's what.
Maybe both versions of ip-address present in the same server, maybe not.



Acee
>
> /js
>


Andy


>
> --
> Jürgen Schönwälder  Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> net...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Acee Lindem (acee) 


On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder" 
 wrote:

On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> [wg-member]
> 
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather 
inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix inet:ip-address 
in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was done in the MIB 
(RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive treatment on this 
point. 
> 

You either assume that all existing uses of inet:ip-address (inside
the IETF and outside the IETF) are wrong or you are willing to break
all the existing correct uses of inet:ip-address so that the type
matches your expectations.

The existing YANG update rules are pretty clear that changing the
semantics of definitions is not allowed. Hence, all the WG could do
is to deprecate ip-address and to introduce ip-address-zone.

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. 

Acee

/js

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder  Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder 
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> [wg-member]
> 
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather 
> inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix 
> inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was 
> done in the MIB (RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive 
> treatment on this point. 
> 

You either assume that all existing uses of inet:ip-address (inside
the IETF and outside the IETF) are wrong or you are willing to break
all the existing correct uses of inet:ip-address so that the type
matches your expectations.

The existing YANG update rules are pretty clear that changing the
semantics of definitions is not allowed. Hence, all the WG could do
is to deprecate ip-address and to introduce ip-address-zone.

/js

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder  Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Acee Lindem (acee) 
Hi Chris, 

On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps"  wrote:



> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
> 
> [wg-member]
> 
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather 
inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix inet:ip-address 
in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was done in the MIB 
(RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive treatment on this 
point. 
> 
> If the netmod WG doesn't have the integrity and strength to fix RFC 6991 
in the BIS version, we should consider changing the OSPF and IS-IS base 
specifications before publication to use inet:ip-address-no-zone. 

[as wg-member]

I think we should do the right thing in our (LSR) modules no matter what, 
again, what harm does it do to get it right in the modules under LSR WGs direct 
control?

I agree and sent an Email to the authors of RFC 9127 BIS which is in the IESG 
right now. 

The netmod change is a much larger action with a large blast radius (not 
saying it's wrong), and perhaps most importantly is also outside of LSR WG 
control. :)

This is the way it should be fixed, irrespective YANG backward compatibility. 
It is a bug and it ought to be fixed in RFC 6991 BIS. No products that I know 
of allow a zone via the textual convention in IP address configuration. This is 
just wrong... 

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,
Chris.
[wg-member]


> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> On 4/5/22, 9:33 AM, "Christian Hopps"  wrote:
> 
>If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, 
what's the harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically 
restricting the base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)
> 
>Thanks,
>Chris.
>[wg member]
> 
>> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee) 
 wrote:
>> 
>> In the MIB,  the base types don't include the zone - 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4001.txt
>> 
>> It was very unfortunate that the YANG IP addresses included the zone in 
the base types. 
>> 
>> Tom - I think it would be hard to find an author where including the 
zone was a conscious decision. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> On 4/4/22, 11:55 AM, "tom petch"  wrote:
>> 
>>   From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
>>   Sent: 04 April 2022 15:58
>> 
>>   Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
>> 
>>   I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 
and IPv6 address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone 
versions should be added as a separate YANG type.
>> 
>>   The RFC 6991 is under revision now:
>> 
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/
>> 
>>   However, I'm not sure if the painful backward compatibility 
discussions could be overcome.  We'd also have to admit that it was a big 
mistake to include the zone in the base addresses. In any case, I don't think 
we just start using the no-zone types when the base addresses types are used 
everywhere.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   Well, there are plenty of uses of the no-zone types as well, so some 
authors, some YANG doctors, have made the conscious choice to use them.  I 
cannot do a search just now but I see no-zone in the dhc and I2NSF WG I-Ds, and 
there are others.
>> 
>>   Also, some authors want the zone information as part of their leaf.
>> 
>>   Tom Petch
>> 
>>   Thanks,
>>   Acee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   On 4/4/22, 7:11 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch"  wrote:
>> 
>>   I assume that this is a refresh while waiting for ospf.yang to 
wind its way through the system
>> 
>>   I wonder if the ip address should be the no-zone variant from 
RFC6991 - I never know the answer to that so keep asking.
>> 
>>   Some time the contact needs updating to https://datatracker and 
the TLP to 'Revised'
>> 
>>   Tom Petch
>> 
>>   
>>   From: Lsr  on behalf of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org 
>>   Sent: 07 March 2022 03:14
>>   To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>>   Cc: lsr@ietf.org
>>   Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
>> 
>> 
>>   A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
>>   This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
>> 
>>   Title   : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
>>   Authors : Acee Lindem
>> Sharmila Palani
>> Yingzhen Qu
>>   Filename: 
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
>>   Pages   : 29
>>   Date: 2022-03-06
>> 
>>   Abstract:
>>

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Christian Hopps 


> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
> 
> [wg-member]
> 
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather 
> inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix 
> inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was 
> done in the MIB (RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive 
> treatment on this point. 
> 
> If the netmod WG doesn't have the integrity and strength to fix RFC 6991 in 
> the BIS version, we should consider changing the OSPF and IS-IS base 
> specifications before publication to use inet:ip-address-no-zone. 

[as wg-member]

I think we should do the right thing in our (LSR) modules no matter what, 
again, what harm does it do to get it right in the modules under LSR WGs direct 
control?

The netmod change is a much larger action with a large blast radius (not saying 
it's wrong), and perhaps most importantly is also outside of LSR WG control. :)

Thanks,
Chris.
[wg-member]


> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> On 4/5/22, 9:33 AM, "Christian Hopps"  wrote:
> 
>If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, 
> what's the harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically 
> restricting the base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)
> 
>Thanks,
>Chris.
>[wg member]
> 
>> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee) 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> In the MIB,  the base types don't include the zone - 
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4001.txt
>> 
>> It was very unfortunate that the YANG IP addresses included the zone in the 
>> base types. 
>> 
>> Tom - I think it would be hard to find an author where including the zone 
>> was a conscious decision. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> On 4/4/22, 11:55 AM, "tom petch"  wrote:
>> 
>>   From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
>>   Sent: 04 April 2022 15:58
>> 
>>   Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
>> 
>>   I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 and 
>> IPv6 address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone 
>> versions should be added as a separate YANG type.
>> 
>>   The RFC 6991 is under revision now:
>> 
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/
>> 
>>   However, I'm not sure if the painful backward compatibility discussions 
>> could be overcome.  We'd also have to admit that it was a big mistake to 
>> include the zone in the base addresses. In any case, I don't think we just 
>> start using the no-zone types when the base addresses types are used 
>> everywhere.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   Well, there are plenty of uses of the no-zone types as well, so some 
>> authors, some YANG doctors, have made the conscious choice to use them.  I 
>> cannot do a search just now but I see no-zone in the dhc and I2NSF WG I-Ds, 
>> and there are others.
>> 
>>   Also, some authors want the zone information as part of their leaf.
>> 
>>   Tom Petch
>> 
>>   Thanks,
>>   Acee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   On 4/4/22, 7:11 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" > behalf of ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>> 
>>   I assume that this is a refresh while waiting for ospf.yang to wind 
>> its way through the system
>> 
>>   I wonder if the ip address should be the no-zone variant from RFC6991 
>> - I never know the answer to that so keep asking.
>> 
>>   Some time the contact needs updating to https://datatracker and the 
>> TLP to 'Revised'
>> 
>>   Tom Petch
>> 
>>   
>>   From: Lsr  on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org 
>> 
>>   Sent: 07 March 2022 03:14
>>   To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>>   Cc: lsr@ietf.org
>>   Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: 
>> draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
>> 
>> 
>>   A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>>   This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
>> 
>>   Title   : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
>>   Authors : Acee Lindem
>> Sharmila Palani
>> Yingzhen Qu
>>   Filename: 
>> draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
>>   Pages   : 29
>>   Date: 2022-03-06
>> 
>>   Abstract:
>>  This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF 
>> YANG
>>  model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
>>  Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362.  OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide
>>  extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 
>> 5340.
>> 
>> 
>>   The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>   
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/
>> 
>>   There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>   
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
>> 
>>   A diff from the previous version is

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Acee Lindem (acee) 
[wg-member]

The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather 
inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix inet:ip-address 
in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was done in the MIB 
(RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive treatment on this 
point. 

If the netmod WG doesn't have the integrity and strength to fix RFC 6991 in the 
BIS version, we should consider changing the OSPF and IS-IS base specifications 
before publication to use inet:ip-address-no-zone. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 4/5/22, 9:33 AM, "Christian Hopps"  wrote:

If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, what's 
the harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically restricting 
the base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)

Thanks,
Chris.
[wg member]

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee) 
 wrote:
> 
> In the MIB,  the base types don't include the zone - 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4001.txt
> 
> It was very unfortunate that the YANG IP addresses included the zone in 
the base types. 
> 
> Tom - I think it would be hard to find an author where including the zone 
was a conscious decision. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 4/4/22, 11:55 AM, "tom petch"  wrote:
> 
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
>Sent: 04 April 2022 15:58
> 
>Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
> 
>I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 
and IPv6 address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone 
versions should be added as a separate YANG type.
> 
>The RFC 6991 is under revision now:
> 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/
> 
>However, I'm not sure if the painful backward compatibility 
discussions could be overcome.  We'd also have to admit that it was a big 
mistake to include the zone in the base addresses. In any case, I don't think 
we just start using the no-zone types when the base addresses types are used 
everywhere.
> 
>
> 
>Well, there are plenty of uses of the no-zone types as well, so some 
authors, some YANG doctors, have made the conscious choice to use them.  I 
cannot do a search just now but I see no-zone in the dhc and I2NSF WG I-Ds, and 
there are others.
> 
>Also, some authors want the zone information as part of their leaf.
> 
>Tom Petch
> 
>Thanks,
>Acee
> 
> 
> 
>On 4/4/22, 7:11 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch"  wrote:
> 
>I assume that this is a refresh while waiting for ospf.yang to 
wind its way through the system
> 
>I wonder if the ip address should be the no-zone variant from 
RFC6991 - I never know the answer to that so keep asking.
> 
>Some time the contact needs updating to https://datatracker and 
the TLP to 'Revised'
> 
>Tom Petch
> 
>
>From: Lsr  on behalf of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org 
>Sent: 07 March 2022 03:14
>To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>Cc: lsr@ietf.org
>Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
> 
> 
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
>Title   : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
>Authors : Acee Lindem
>  Sharmila Palani
>  Yingzhen Qu
>Filename: 
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
>Pages   : 29
>Date: 2022-03-06
> 
>Abstract:
>   This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF 
OSPF YANG
>   model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement 
(LSA)
>   Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362.  OSPFv3 Extended LSAs 
provide
>   extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 
5340.
> 
> 
>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/
> 
>There is also an htmlized version available at:
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
> 
>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
> 
> 
>Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at 
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> 
> 
>___
>

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Christian Hopps 
If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, what's the 
harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically restricting the 
base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)

Thanks,
Chris.
[wg member]

> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee) 
>  wrote:
> 
> In the MIB,  the base types don't include the zone - 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4001.txt
> 
> It was very unfortunate that the YANG IP addresses included the zone in the 
> base types. 
> 
> Tom - I think it would be hard to find an author where including the zone was 
> a conscious decision. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 4/4/22, 11:55 AM, "tom petch"  wrote:
> 
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
>Sent: 04 April 2022 15:58
> 
>Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
> 
>I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 and 
> IPv6 address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone 
> versions should be added as a separate YANG type.
> 
>The RFC 6991 is under revision now:
> 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/
> 
>However, I'm not sure if the painful backward compatibility discussions 
> could be overcome.  We'd also have to admit that it was a big mistake to 
> include the zone in the base addresses. In any case, I don't think we just 
> start using the no-zone types when the base addresses types are used 
> everywhere.
> 
>
> 
>Well, there are plenty of uses of the no-zone types as well, so some 
> authors, some YANG doctors, have made the conscious choice to use them.  I 
> cannot do a search just now but I see no-zone in the dhc and I2NSF WG I-Ds, 
> and there are others.
> 
>Also, some authors want the zone information as part of their leaf.
> 
>Tom Petch
> 
>Thanks,
>Acee
> 
> 
> 
>On 4/4/22, 7:11 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch"  behalf of ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
>I assume that this is a refresh while waiting for ospf.yang to wind 
> its way through the system
> 
>I wonder if the ip address should be the no-zone variant from RFC6991 
> - I never know the answer to that so keep asking.
> 
>Some time the contact needs updating to https://datatracker and the 
> TLP to 'Revised'
> 
>Tom Petch
> 
>
>From: Lsr  on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org 
> 
>Sent: 07 March 2022 03:14
>To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>Cc: lsr@ietf.org
>Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
> 
> 
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
>Title   : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
>Authors : Acee Lindem
>  Sharmila Palani
>  Yingzhen Qu
>Filename: 
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
>Pages   : 29
>Date: 2022-03-06
> 
>Abstract:
>   This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF 
> YANG
>   model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
>   Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362.  OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide
>   extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 
> 5340.
> 
> 
>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/
> 
>There is also an htmlized version available at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
> 
>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
> 
> 
>Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at 
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> 
> 
>___
>Lsr mailing list
>Lsr@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
>___
>Lsr mailing list
>Lsr@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
> 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-li-lsr-droid-00.txt

2022-04-05 Thread Tony Li 


Hi Robert,

>> Or you think that DROID as proposed could take on day one flowspec v2 with 
>> its various extensions as example ? 


I realized I did not answer this explicitly.  

DROID aspires to be completely generic. If it can be encoded in bytes, then 
there’s no reason that it can’t go in DROID.  Flowspec v2 is certainly within 
scope.

T

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr