Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> (YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 19 October 2017 10:46 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAE7134922 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A130X2ybobFh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07AFC134925 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1655; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1508409991; x=1509619591; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7jniRaBqVouWMabu6juJ868hP7buJMNXm16Bz/W3Vwg=; b=XuEUhM4JbbtUivvbZSdWmjRSKTdCAQ8pco6XTFTVov5ZXKJfeKo2+men k+j5JI1i/tBmQ7Cq3u76uZa++bMul5lLftObRGNzypbYjJH4Pt9H4AAN8 Nch1PKCxkNNoXAUPRjCAAsBdupcSvzy3yhKfeDVQeP5hSU6K71uHcpxBy 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0APAwA8gehZ/xbLJq1dDgsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYRDbieDeosTjhQBgiqWMxCCBAojhElPAoVHFwECAQEBAQEBAWsohR4BBSMPAQVRCxgCAhEOBwICVwYBDAgBAYocEKp2gieLIAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARsFgQ+CIINYgWorgwOCRYF7JQEBXYJVgmEFih2HLpAIiz4MiSWLZoczjhKHYoE5IQMzgVs0IQgdFYMtgxGBD0E+NgGIMII1AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,401,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="658169040"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Oct 2017 10:46:29 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9JAkSfI018574; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:46:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> (YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <150531137507.30405.6179845967838123305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3d65a756-fe9b-19de-fd94-40f4618d729b@cisco.com> <c6efd2ae-5f5d-1699-89fe-0d2f28b71cdb@alumni.stanford.edu>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <46f1be77-03ab-61b7-b64c-aa05739d0985@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:46:28 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c6efd2ae-5f5d-1699-89fe-0d2f28b71cdb@alumni.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8Z907fGrD3KHKmQuMQ2ooCa5yvU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:46:33 -0000
Hi Randy, > Hi - > > On 10/13/2017 11:55 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > ... >> Since RFC8049 is not implementable and therefore not implemented, > > That's rather a leap of faith. The fact that spec is badly broken > and probably should not have been published in the first place isn't > of itself going to stop someone from using it as the basis for an > implementation of *something*. Quoting Jan Lindblad, as YANG doctor: "The 8049 YANG model had broken XPATH expressions, so a compliant implementation was impossible." > RFC 1065 is a great example of something > quite unimplementable as specified (its usage of ASN.1 MACRO > notation is gobbledygook) yet nonetheless saw rather wide deployment. > If there is a need for something, folks are pretty good at DWIM. > > It may well be true that there are no implementations of this module, > but the rationale given is most unconvincing, particularly given the > importance of module name/content stability in stitching this stuff > together. > >> keeping the same YANG module name seems about right. > > This group seems to be rather attached to module names, and > in ways at odds with the on-the-wire significance of those names. > Seems like some thought needs to be given to configuration management. See the NETMOD discussion https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19108.html Keeping the same YANG module has the advantage than the link between the old and the new YANG modules will be maintained. And the "import" (as opposed to "import by revision") will take into account the new correct module. Regards, Benoit > > Randy > > . >
- Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> … Benoit Claise
- Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> … Randy Presuhn
- Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> … Benoit Claise
- Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> … Randy Presuhn
- RE: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> … Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> … Randy Presuhn