Re: [netmod] IP addresses with zone indices

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

> Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:
>
> >> > Anyway, I don't understand why such a type would belong to either
> >> > ietf-ip or ietf-inet-types.
> >>
> >> Because then we can avoid having the same pattern in multiple
> >> places. What's wrong on such a type? I think it is quite
> >> comparable to types like "uint32" which also have no special
> >> semantics.
> >
> > My point was that it is not clear why it would be defined in ietf-ip
> > or ietf-inet.  There is no ip or inet specific semantics associated
> > with this type.  ietf-yang would be a better place for it...  But see
> > below.
>
> I agree, such a type probably belongs to ietf-inet-types, but we can't
> afford a new downref to 6021bis now. The scenario could IMO look like this:
>
> 1. Define this type temporarily in ietf-ip and use where necessary;
> 2. Add it also to ietf-inet-types;
> 3. After 6021bis is published, change "ip:dotted-quad" to
> "inet:dotted-quad" in next revisions of ietf-ip, ietf-routing etc;
> 4. Obsolete "ip:dotted-quad".
>
>

A: deploying standards is very expensive.  Temporary fixes last 10 - 20
years around here.
There is no such thing.  Get it right the first time or pay the price for
many years to come.

B: There happens to be a 6021bis draft:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt
It adds 'hex-string' and 'uuid' to ietf-yang-types.yang.
(A 'Changes Since RFC 6021' section would make that more clear.)

There are many useful typedefs in the common-types.yang module in
the proposed ACL draft.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-huang-netmod-acl-01.txt

I don't know how practical it is to re-open 6021 every time the WG thinks of
a new typedef to add.  But it seems easier than chartering and publishing
new work,
and it is better for YANG developers to keep the standard types in a lot
of random modules.

I don't agree with any of the 4 options above. I prefer:

5) work on 6021bis for a short time (1 - 2 months) and
publish reusable data types only in 1 place (6021bis).

Andy

Could this work?
>
> >
> >
> >> > For now, I think the quickest way forward is to solve this separately
> >> > in each module.
> >>
> >> If you define the above type in ietf-ip, then I can reuse it -
> >> ietf-routing already imports ietf-ip. Would this be any slower?
> >
> > Ok, I'd like to make progress, so I am prepared to define this type in
> > ietf-ip, and use it for the netmask.
>
> Good, I'm going to use it for "router-id".
>
> Thanks, Lada
>
> >
> >
> > /martin
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>