Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-14.txt

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> >> Deprecating ip-address (and ipv4-address and ipv6-address?) is probably
> the
> >> most disruptive
> >> change to YANG that one could make.
>
> No, the most disruptive thing would be to do what roughly 1/2 of the WG
> was proposing before, which is to introduce now a non-backwards compatible
> change in the existing definitions, which would immediately break all
> legacy uses.
>
>
> >> A type name cannot be changed.
>
> Nothing of the sort is being proposed here.
>
>
> >> A new name can be introduced so there are 2 types that do the same
> thing.
> >> IMO this will increase the overall confusion, and not help in any way.
>
> We are addressing the current/existing confusion, as discussed in the last
> 9 months and in a virtual interim.  Not doing anything would be truly
> unhelpful.
>
> The strategy is to gradually move towards having only explicit names.
>  The first step is to introduce a new explicit name, while deprecating the
> legacy ambiguous name.  This provides time for modules to slowly migrate to
> the new name.  The second step, to be done only after the "versioning" work
> lands, is to remove the legacy deprecated name, while marking the module
> revision as having an NBC change.
>
>
IMO there is no operational problem to fix.
It is too late to change the names of the IP addresses with zones.
It is not a real problem because the server is still responsible for
accepting or sending the zone index (just like address 0.0.0.0).

For data types where the zone is never supposed to be allowed may need to
change to the no-zone variant.

Redoing all YANG modules that use the (proposed) deprecated ip-address
to some other type name is very disruptive and not needed.


Andy

Between the two steps is when there may be confusion but even then, not
> really, if tooling properly warns about deprecated nodes.
>
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>