Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 BCBDD128CF2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 08:32:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bbZIzA-NFuMU for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 08:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206E1128CE4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 08:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-40-120.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.40.120]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FF621AE0493; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 17:32:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 17:31:59 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20181109.173159.1522007243611164311.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181109151347.3xms2cty6hxyl232@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <20181109081557.kzalxvnsk2k2fycm@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20181109.143729.1869485019013831956.mbj@tail-f.com> <20181109151347.3xms2cty6hxyl232@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Cklq9miANhJE5I9EI2ubWQZN5fg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 16:32:05 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:29PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > 
> > > I think we need to distinguish between the agreement on the
> > > requirement, namely that a server should be able to provide support
> > > for an old and a new definition, and agreement on the solution.
> > > 
> > > Do you disagree with the requirement? Or do you disagree with the
> > > consequences of implementing multiple versions of the same module
> > > for some of the proposed new versioning schemes? Or both?
> > 
> > I do not agree with the requirement that a server MUST be able to
> > support multiple revisions of the same module, which is how I
> > interpret 3.2.  If this is not the intention of 3.2, maybe it can be
> > clarified.
> >
> 
> Here is what 3.2 says:
> 
>        3.2  The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to
>             simultaneously support clients using different revisions of
>             modules.  A client's choice of particular revision of one or
>             more modules may restrict the particular revision of other
>             modules that may be used in the same request or session.
> 
> This does _not_ say servers MUST implement this.
> 
> Item 3.2 establishes a requirement and for some solutions it may be
> easy to satisfy this requirement, for others it may be more costly to
> satisfy this requirement.
> 
> The whole requirements exercise becomes a rather pointless exercise if
> we remove requirements so that certain solutions look more
> attractive.

Ok, but that's not what I wrote.  I don't agree with this requirement
which says that it MUST be possible for a server to support
different revisions of a given module (again, if this is not the
intention of the text, please clarify).  I simply don't think that
this is a good requirement.


/martin


> I have not seen a proposal that addresses all requirements and hence
> at the end the WG needs to decide which tradeoffs make sense.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>