IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Netmod-ver-dt] Resolving package conflicts

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B50412085E for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 header.b=O/uwvS7P; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=paE06LiU
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 TaTWgJ60ONWA for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D939E12088F for <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7623; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568195975; x=1569405575; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=6E/r8bokqwImM+/ppJD4c6NyDUcLzJHtAFzZ4Rfp0rE=; b=O/uwvS7Pv8eVuAbHxnKm0bMrzNV+D+vacLJ0dC1ulDluvKoYlTL3hIZc VSckjtIoP/yeoBiseOOqbUtUcsg24BiuB2tVO878KAphfL3u9xJTqj9qb 2DE/ump7OWDHqSAsKDdBBHVm3a9G4amm9+XvyBUicYHTN26XQH51vxwb6 I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:3H9V4BA4cxdBdRvkbU4eUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9pssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qs13kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMfkuHwQAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuNuHrazA9GuxJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BQAACJxHhd/4ENJK1lHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUwcBAQsBgRUvUANtViAECyoKh14DhFKGKk2VI4RcgS6BJANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEPwKCUyM0CQ4CAwkBAQQBAQECAQYEbYUuAQuFYxsTAQE4EQFHORQSAQQTCBqDAYEdTQMdAQKeQQKBOIhhgiWCfQEBBYUFGIIWCYE0AYt3GIFAP4FXgh8BLIUEgzuCJpRhl2oKgiEDjAwGiH2ZCo1/mG4CBAIEBQIOAQEFgVI4gVhwFTuCbIJCg3KKU3OBKY1cAYEiAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,493,1559520000"; d="scan'208,217";a="408849511"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 Sep 2019 09:59:34 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8B9xY3M015184 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:59:34 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:59:33 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 05:59:33 -0400
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:59:32 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=HfugpeY4cLFpjCgUbMWOw0goq8EE8yNj/5c+pTBQraq7xowlPFkHtGhS87VY6gCT9OFd7qEZf0zFVCBYjyhdQub+KP5fo0XJGNtkD5yYaGFw4tXT9twZE3Xrmwzu3GDQV6tpARgu4SLr3habXonk5fK15UJwdcI33CvfVT+ErtR0yEkg7BTOWNOx5LBaBkknnIwAgyE2HR2ZjvUOLK0QDV3MH7Wfs6s4Xy/SSV0iWpTeohdSVILkaOU8dir0XF++nHrodPylHuTXgtNSwMrvuXvjd6DDQbF6deSukC3X88XxETiM8xQosdDoyapwUilUP9hPOdjd2JA2Unp472U1lQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jy1sYl1xOZKDYlE6sDMbChYnQsynFpS4Q7729q3qvzE=; b=E/uc6SOU6nzUOJ2Bv5jXJqLHlAJRnujndd5ABkBld8Q5L8wtMzIAcnxy6m6cAhitjia9aQQEMrGKxOSjeS2fEUbv2/QpF7NeClLrRv3ooks6IgOrTnbw2M5zxEhCJcVhBU+odcD7GI0RekEAbtQBwjid2hKZZd3yRjYuX5AinTSdJ6/ga0/cOhY6YFlHBuK44docjO9v85fkq360gQsLVsLr+jipaMetJncGvnW0HxTxWZBi1ex1m5jO1mxKRjF9s/kclxqI9iqi10dqaxVTez3AKjSDECXlQvxJmJKdErbZmkHO2157f9h+EJLHcmUM8cPP9JcNkoTteAfMwDrggA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jy1sYl1xOZKDYlE6sDMbChYnQsynFpS4Q7729q3qvzE=; b=paE06LiU8VpvqcZRVee/dULacqXHkUqR+Hjshze8g2vvfFXxVZT/WLsnYQsEWylbWJrIy061et1fQ0oFjKBw3L3Ea2upq3gtbKayMTQMdJ0VnfQfFehPEYdCzTi6j+78sp3J8gd3QZ2RbT6Tz1XkexO1IagdVqXORxXkfpZG0nc=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.209) by MN2PR11MB4271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.36.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2241.14; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:59:31 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6db3:f4c:467b:30f6]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6db3:f4c:467b:30f6%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2241.018; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:59:31 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: "netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org" <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Resolving package conflicts
Thread-Index: AdVohPwpEQpYeopUSXOua5yScTazvw==
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:59:31 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB4366FB929D5867AA78244608B5B10@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.40]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2e80ca19-e91d-43f7-429c-08d7369ebe18
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4271;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4271:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB4271655AB9E8B4FF85113428B5B10@MN2PR11MB4271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0157DEB61B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(346002)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(6506007)(66066001)(86362001)(3846002)(478600001)(790700001)(5640700003)(2501003)(8936002)(14454004)(316002)(9686003)(2351001)(55016002)(54896002)(6306002)(74316002)(81156014)(6916009)(6436002)(236005)(81166006)(33656002)(52536014)(8676002)(7116003)(5660300002)(7696005)(186003)(53936002)(486006)(6116002)(2906002)(476003)(25786009)(3480700005)(102836004)(71200400001)(256004)(7736002)(66946007)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(76116006)(71190400001)(99286004)(26005)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4271; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: V4lhQS6M5fQcAAEHEiGK61fHW6fk/hV6CQthP0IUtfQhhwQ2QagMkbGIOCKWb97sr4KTyEvi7q9vwJnmozM37yP/ukna9bDOxx5ILkcjF5Jib6stewwDo6jjoTKGodQmUn3UeVFPigMo6DoeYpbKk2WOok1VGRi3wC9O7aXKEtMJGUyuRQeDBptUL54LstAIfIEV9dmCQYnbePTPgc1dnXgOKgsAKcysu1bdvrru/p7PXW9cUteBA66YhXRT86tXBbMkTTrbnpQu0EE5SmvU5Qqfbd5BGDrRdr17v/rfmRqnruW3mNF37rJ1zVyHKZ2qTaYXheiXYVtnYyX01PWxlugRXiAJyGJrSRaR5+0Rjs6bBs4C3/xC6urACGFUO92Kj8yUMJME9DkDOJz0HSKGvUcCJ5uPXEdOwjmdqZDbDSQ=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB4366FB929D5867AA78244608B5B10MN2PR11MB4366namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2e80ca19-e91d-43f7-429c-08d7369ebe18
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Sep 2019 09:59:31.6798 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: HPaxGC7oAiq3SchWXHAoqdaV+a19uUE1G8Vfw1p6zI4IzIXvU7LxoHy0OXsZms61civu6mfJhX4WqviVmZvXSQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4271
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod-ver-dt/60c0wlxfpOf1Wo1uCcXNfU22g3E>
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Resolving package conflicts
X-BeenThere: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NetMod WG YANG Model Versioning Design Team <netmod-ver-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod-ver-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:59:43 -0000

In the packages draft it is possible to for a package definition to combine modules from two separate packages which may conflict.  I.e. more than one version of a module might end up in the resultant package, or the import dependencies might need to be fixed.

This is OK, because the packages draft requires that these conflicts are always explicitly resolved by listing the specific module versions in the combined package, so the problem is solved.

But what about if we define a package ietf-base@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-base@1.0.0> that contains, say, 10 modules?

This package might be imported by a hypothetical ietf-routing@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-routing@1.0.0>.

Separately there might be a hypothetical ietf-l2vpn@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-l2vpn@1.0.0> package that has been published later and uses an updated version of ietf-base package, say ietf-base@1.5.0<mailto:ietf-base@1.5.0>, that may contain BC updates to several of the modules.

Say a device wants to implement a my-packages@0.5.0<mailto:my-packages@0.5.0> module that imports both ietf-routing@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-routing@1.0.0> and ietf-l2vpn@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-l2vpn@1.0.0>.  Currently the packages draft would require the my-packages definition to explicitly re-state each of the modules in ietf-base@1.5.0<mailto:ietf-base@1.5.0> that differed ietf-base@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-base@1.0.0> (because only a single version of a module can be implemented, and all conflicts must be explicitly resolved).

This works, but I'm wondering whether that might become overly verbose.  Hence, I'm thinking that it might be useful for the my-packages@0.5.0<mailto:my-packages@0.5.0> definition to explicitly list ietf-base@1.5.0<mailto:ietf-base@1.5.0> as a direct package import, stating that it is replacing ietf-base@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-base@1.0.0> (which is indirectly imported via ietf-routing@1.0.0<mailto:ietf-routing@1.0.0>).  Avoiding the need to explicitly list the conflicting modules.  In fact, we could require that all conflicting imported package versions must also be explicitly resolved, just like for modules.

Does anyone have any objections to this?

Thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email