Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 05:47:45PM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> > There are actual instances where small perhaps non-disruptive but
> > incompatible changes are required. The example given to me for this
> > type of change was when the original specification had an obvious
> > bug (e.g., a range was incorrectly specified).
>
> I strongly believe that fixing bugs is not a reason to change the
> current versioning rules. Bugs come essentially in three flavors:
>
> - A definition is messed up (i.e., a range, a pattern, a must
>   expression) but the original intention of the definition is clear
>   from the context (description clauses, references, ...). In this
>   case, implementors will likely have done the right thing (or when
>   they observed the problem they will likely have done the right
>   thing).
>
> - A definition is messed up but it is not clear from the context what
>   the original intention of the definition was. In this case, there is
>   a true ambiguity and implementors can rightfully have come to
>   different conclusions how to deal with the conflict in the
>   definition.
>
> In the first case, I believe there is no issue with simply fixing the
> messed up definition. I believe this kind of bug fixes is not
> constrained by the YANG update rules.
>
> In the second case, there is true ambiguity what implementations may
> do and hence the safest approach is to deprecate the messed up
> definition and to create a replacement.
>
> Of course, in reality, things are often not so clear cut and hence it
> takes some informed judgement what is the reasonable way to deal with
> things. (A type two bug caught very early may be different from a type
> two bug caught after several months of implementation and deployment.)
>
> Sometimes we also have situations where a definition that was
> originally OK turs out over time to be problematic as technology has
> evolved. So after some time, the original definition starts to look
> like a bug but it actually is not. The safe path forward is again to
> create new definitions and to deprecate the old ones.
>
> Now, for those in favour of moving from (module, path) to (module,
> path, version), you loose the deprecated definition. So if you wan't
> to allow for a transition period, there is a need to allow an old
> client to work with the old definition and a new client to work with
> the new definition. In the current naming scheme, this is not a
> problem, with a (module, path, version) naming scheme this requires
> some extra complexity.
>
>

The problem with versioning the "YANG API" is that it is not possible to
isolate
individual modules and say "I pick version 1.0.3 of module foo and version
2.1.1
of module bar". And every client can pick a different arbitrary subset of
mix-and-match YANG modules.

Well YANG does not work that way.  There is no concept of a YANG package.
There is no concept of a group of modules/versions/features that are
not divisible within a server implementation.

The other problem is what you are pointing out.
It would be far easier to just fix the clients and the servers, not just
the servers.
Why is it OK for the client developer to decide "we are sticking with the
defective version of the module and not going to upgrade to
the fixed version like the server developers have done."


/js
>

Andy


>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>