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

Hi - On 2022-04-08 5:11 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: .. Instead, Acee (I'm not sure I'd call him WG B :) is asserting that *nobody* actually wanted the current type, and it has been misused everywhere and all over. The vast majority of implementations in operation probably can't even handle the

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

Hi - Let me get this straight. WG A standardized types X and Y years ago, and support for these has presumably been implemented in some number of tools, which in turn have been used to develop some unknowable number of products, whose deployment is even more unknowable. WG B comes along, and

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

Hi - On 2022-04-09 4:36 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: ... FWIW, I'm not arguing for this change; however, to be fair, isn't this also about the existing published modules that are using the incorrect type? No. "Incorrect type" is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's like saying using "int32"

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

Hi - On 2022-04-08 12:25 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: ... If you look at the existing YANG RFCs rather than drafts that are confirming to the error, you'll notice that they don't use the no-zone types: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8344/ ... Huh? RFC 8344 *does* use

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

Hi - I took a fresh look at RFC 6991, and a couple of things that have already been mentioned in this thread bear repetition. (1) in both the ipv4-address and ipv6-address typdefs, the zone is only optionally present. This is made clear both in the string patterns as well as the descriptions,

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

Hi - On 2022-04-14 1:33 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 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 >

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

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

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

t the scope information is being provided by other context (e.g., outgoing-interface in the example above), or perhaps most operators just configure their devices using global IP addresses. Some further comments inline … > -Original Message- > From: netmod On Behalf Of Randy P

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

ink Rob is trying to strike that balance (and has been for a while now with his work in this area), and I support him. Thanks, Chris. Randy Presuhn writes: Hi - If one accepts your arguments, you've made the case for defining a new module with typedefs for ipv6-address, etc. with modified synta