Re: [netmod] YANG next

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 23 July 2019 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664801206CA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 VasKxkTGX-C9 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561011206CC for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:1a4f:a84b:2bfd:c611]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61DCE140AF8; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:38:31 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1563903511; bh=uw8fSKPauxXH2CPXsHJEnLYgy52wg5QnjqCp1GnY7pQ=; h=From:To:Date; b=PzIiKyaFIO6grQmFBSmWi7nkHxY+PejqUtMjj1Enra03WwR9736iYbzAFOq2QP6kZ X0FEbQL3dRa5afN3Ls3GC3zo2l6WNv1RSrIuqU4tYMQHMmB+xHxF20Lt+zGnZQFBdB V/86b+nw7jNnw/uKrWfz7VNiJ8oXC3YWluOh7hyE=
Message-ID: <b22e02910d7e82f7725aa527cb126d665d810860.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bal=E1zs?= Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:38:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0701MB2286E0933ADCB3E0F004F02AF0C70@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ff5d90b51872df190abb226cb10d51a635e88521.camel@nic.cz> <VI1PR0701MB2286E0933ADCB3E0F004F02AF0C70@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at mail.nic.cz
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-A3rqZQCwzzSX2YfWiew5oTdy6I>
Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG next
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:38:38 -0000

On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 16:22 +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello,
> I share your concerns. However I see some ways of mitigating the problem:
> 1) Maybe the extension based solution is better than many people would
> believe. If we put new features (like status-information,
> import-revision-or-derived, preliminary-status etc.) into extensions e.g.
> Yang1-2:status-information older systems can just ignore them while never
> systems would still be able to use them. This might not work for all new
> functionality, but would definitely work for some.

This could work only for extensions that do not affect YANG semantics. For
example, if a server actively uses schema mount, then a client that ignores it
is next to useless.

For critical extensions that affect YANG semantics, it would IMO be necessary to
develop modules supporting them in separate branches, along with their 1.1-only
versions.

> 2) Some yang-next ideas are really clarifications of yang 1.1 (e.g. Clarify
> YANG "status" keyword usage (e.g., hierarchical)) so they will not disturb
> current users.

Of course, clarifications and bug fixes are OK.

Lada

> Regards Balazs
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
> Sent: 2019. július 23., kedd 12:03
> To: NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: [netmod] YANG next
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this morning I attended the side meeting "Next Step of IETF YANG". I was
> somewhat misled into thinking that it would be about future evolution of
> YANG the language, which was not the case at all. However, my personal
> conclusion from the meeting is that it would be a total disaster to throw in
> a new version of YANG within the next few years or so.
> 
> The operators and equipment vendors are busy putting together YANG modules
> and tools, filling the gaps, coping with NMDA, schema mount, IETF versus
> OpenConfig etc. A new YANG version (and modules written in it) would IMO be
> extremely counter-productive at this rather turbulent stage.
> 
> So, if we want to continue the yang-next discussion, I think we first have
> to figure out how to evolve YANG without making waves in the current YANG
> pond and let the operators and vendors do their work, without which YANG can
> never succeed.
> 
> Lada
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67