Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 07 September 2017 19:43 UTC

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?
Thread-Index: AQHTJzZlKMfT3FTQbEyg9FUCwcWxgKKoaiaAgAFZEgD//8CXgIAAkGoA///AdoA=
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 19:43:47 +0000
Message-ID: <D5D71767.C6E17%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D94B3E90-8676-4790-A186-84CB7DC18B49@juniper.net> <20170906.200545.1646568136744118938.mbj@tail-f.com> <9acc6055-c7b0-8c80-3468-72b090b9253f@labn.net> <D5D6D48D.C6D1C%acee@cisco.com> <B0660268-33F0-4EA0-82D7-516811C0E406@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <B0660268-33F0-4EA0-82D7-516811C0E406@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2B13004F4F1DAF4690AD24ADE054D87E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JwF_DVewo1mrOpiKug1d9LET1eY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 19:43:51 -0000

Hi Kent, 

On 9/7/17, 3:30 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>
>> Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes.
>
>Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's?
>I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on
>these nmda-update drafts.

I would hope this is not a prerequisite? We are evaluating how bad this
will be. I’d ask how many implementations there are of ietf-routing?
>
>> However, what about secondary and tertiary implications of moving to
>> NDMA? If we change a path from “interface-state-ref” to “interface-ref”
>> to reference an interface, I’d hope no one would expect the old
>> statement to be kept around…
>
>But the old statement would be kept around, in its deprecated form.
>Of course, the nmda-guidelines should cause those downstream modules
>to be updated to NMDA as well, so hopefully just a short-lived issue.

This could be really ugly and cascade if we are just using a different
path for a reference. Hopefully, all the old references are in deprecated
trees. Otherwise, I guess the new data leaf would need a unique name.

Thanks,
Acee 
>
>Kent
>
>

[netmod] two options for removing /foo-state tree… Kent Watsen
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Martin Bjorklund
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Lou Berger
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Kent Watsen
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Kent Watsen
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Xufeng Liu
Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state … Acee Lindem (acee)