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

Hi Xufeng, 

I’m hoping all our references to “interface-state-ref” will be in schema
nodes that are themselves being deprecated. Yingzhen is investigating.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 9/8/17, 4:12 PM, "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>A consequence of this discussion, I have a question about writing a model
>to augment RFC8022bis or RFC7223bis:
>
>The new augmentation model is NMDA compliant, but also requires immediate
>support for "in use" and "system created" information, as described in
>Sec 1.3 of the guidelines
>(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01).
>
>In such a case, the relevant suggestions in the guidelines are:
>
>(b) Write a non-NMDA module that mirror the NMDA module.
>    -- This cannot be done because we are augmenting RFC8022bis or
>RFC7233bis, which do not have the non-NMDA modules.
>
>(d) It is RECOMMENDED to augment only the "/foo" hierarchy of the base
>model. Where this recommendation cannot be followed, then any new "state"
>elements SHOULD be included in their own module.
>
>The question is about the (d) above. We seem have to augment the
>deprecated "/foo-state" branch, right? We would also have to use the
>deprecated “interface-state-ref”?
>
>Thanks,
>- Xufeng
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
>> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 7:28 PM
>> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>;
>> Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?
>> 
>> 
>> >>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?
>> 
>> Yes, please provide this info when you have it.
>> 
>> 
>> >>> 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.
>> 
>> Indeed.  Let's see what the analysis reveals.
>> 
>> Kent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>