Return-Path: 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 A1C7C1200CE for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:12:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lnV21Aw6Qs0h for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F057612002F for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.113] (p54A6CA4C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.202.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45QFHW3wCpzyP1; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:12:23 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:12:25 +0200 Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder , NETMOD WG X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 582196344.147365-758f582eb5a9ce194593ff3f8b62569f Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <996EFBB4-E24C-4A3D-A3C3-F0425E0C74AF@tzi.org> References: <291106e34498ebd68f26bf9ff9b679dd5bd8f0cd.camel@nic.cz> <20190612092555.xotrr4moh36xv4kl@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> To: Ladislav Lhotka X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [netmod] regular expression flavours (again) X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: NETMOD WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:12:29 -0000 On Jun 14, 2019, at 09:58, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >=20 > I agree with all this but, apparently, OpenConfig people don't care = too much. > And since they are much more agile than the IETF, our views may soon = become > irrelevant. If this becomes our attitude, we already are irrelevant. I have no idea why someone would go for Posix REs of all things, but if = OpenConfig wants to do that, more power to them. However, YANG has = well-defined extension points, and arbitrarily changing the semantics of = the pattern statement is not one of them. So we have to make sure they = know that this is not tolerable, and probably show them the way on a = good way to make use of the existing extension points. For CDDL, we essentially have the same problem (nobody likes W3C XSD, = not even their REs, but there were good reasons to choose them, not the = least that YANG also chose them). CDDL also has an extension point that = is useful here, and RFC 8610 Section 3.8.3.2 was added specifically to = guide CDDL users to use the right extension point once the need comes = up: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8610#section-3.8.3.2 I would expect the netmod community to write a similar section, in a = separate I-D of its own if need be, and obtain IETF consensus on it. = Make the OpenConfig people aware of it (now, and when it=E2=80=99s = done). Github issues are a good way to do the latter. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten