Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 24 April 2018 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 8006512D96C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 WKZ4nEgqfoCI for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A9712D943 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:d066:6fff:fe74:312a]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFA6C62D9B; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:22:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1524583380; bh=Jk9lFIYPi5gecsmFOQcnbypm3nYElV0aKVeWs2SDjjw=; h=From:To:Date; b=wsUyaedJFiWuMhRUOcfiFUxF58z3KevHvSMoy17g2jnd/OAtsdJeCe0ZBMGMisFDx egbBz36eo2skWu7VWNINmijW7n/tSPcmOugQjFT0kgJ5CBGQUIGFOLcE6KMIvpb+Yj UvWyiDDlLeDhq6LjtDKtngfheNlJ9SxHb1ukj9tk=
Message-ID: <f3d42ada935f583ed286eaac117875eef6aecc0b.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, netmod@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:23:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20180424.163601.648085760139600532.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20180423165104.zi7g75tifhekmezh@elstar.local> <20180423.215110.441857992070858100.mbj@tail-f.com> <87wowwr826.fsf@nic.cz> <20180424.163601.648085760139600532.mbj@tail-f.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bO6nFtDRCespzDcCfnVkGfkg8kw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:23:06 -0000

On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 16:36 +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>; wrote:
> > Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; writes:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am not sure what this statement tells us re. the issue in this email
> > > thread.
> > 
> > It tells us that, in my view, the approach taken in this document is a
> > bad idea.
> 
> Do you mean that the WG shoud drop this document?  And people that

Yes. Doing it properly would amount to rewriting many parts of RFC 7950 for use
inside "yang-data".

> need yang-data should continue to use the version in 8040?  Or that

Preferably not.

> people that need yang-data do not have a valid use case and they
> should do something else?

They may have a valid use case but YANG (in the current form) is not suitable
for it.

Lada


> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 02:56:51PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > I am much more concerned with some of the post-1.1 features, also
> > >> > because YANG is now being updated in several directions without a
> > >> > clear vision. And another big problem is that YANG extensions are
> > >> > used for these changes, so we will probably end up with several
> > >> > different versions of YANG, although formally everything will be
> > >> > 1.1.
> > >> 
> > >> I tend to agree. Ideally, we would carefully remove things from YANG
> > >> that did not meet the cost/benefit target (e.g., submodules),
> > >> reorganize definitions whenever possible (some NETCONF specific stuff
> > >> in the YANG specification should not be there, XML encoding may be
> > >> factored out) and incorporate new features (like yang-data) after we
> > >> have sufficient _experience_ to know that such new features will be
> > >> useful (which seems to be the case for yang-data).
> > >> 
> > >> Yes, such iterations likely take 2 years at IETF speed but this kind
> > >> of maintenance cost/effort is likely the price to be paied for
> > >> something that is being used at a larger scale.
> > >> 
> > >> Some people will say that the cost of a new language version is high.
> > >> (Well, when we did 1.1, some people said it will never be deployed.)
> > >> Anyway, not bumping the YANG version number but having instead several
> > >> (optional) language extensions is just hiding the version number
> > >> change under the carpet.
> > >> 
> > >> /js
> > >> 
> > >> -- 
> > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > >> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> netmod mailing list
> > >> netmod@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ladislav Lhotka
> > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67