Re: [netmod] IP addresses with zone indices

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 10 December 2012 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 B183B21F8235 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:02:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYi+6mo--WJK for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB3121F8201 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3272020BFF; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:02:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtR-OJLaDpOG; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:02:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCE720C0E; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:02:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E39C9235FDBA; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:02:13 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:02:13 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Message-ID: <20121210170213.GG49658@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <2105C80D-48CA-494B-A62A-8A1BA5919D42@nic.cz> <20121204.211903.458434883.mbj@tail-f.com> <m27gowsv1t.fsf@ladislav.lhotka.nb1.wifi0.office.nic.cz> <20121210.155754.589804255154826193.mbj@tail-f.com> <m2lid6ue27.fsf@nic.cz> <CABCOCHT7xfAaP99RVyE6LCKt1KZJRqjZ8hX-UxWcnoCx1Q1pTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHT7xfAaP99RVyE6LCKt1KZJRqjZ8hX-UxWcnoCx1Q1pTg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] IP addresses with zone indices
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:02:08 -0000

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:34:57AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> A: deploying standards is very expensive.  Temporary fixes last 10 - 20
> years around here.
> There is no such thing.  Get it right the first time or pay the price for
> many years to come.
> 
> B: There happens to be a 6021bis draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt
> It adds 'hex-string' and 'uuid' to ietf-yang-types.yang.
> (A 'Changes Since RFC 6021' section would make that more clear.)
> 
> There are many useful typedefs in the common-types.yang module in
> the proposed ACL draft.
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-huang-netmod-acl-01.txt
> 
> I don't know how practical it is to re-open 6021 every time the WG thinks of
> a new typedef to add.  But it seems easier than chartering and publishing
> new work,
> and it is better for YANG developers to keep the standard types in a lot
> of random modules.
> 
> I don't agree with any of the 4 options above. I prefer:
> 
> 5) work on 6021bis for a short time (1 - 2 months) and
> publish reusable data types only in 1 place (6021bis).

The question is whether 1-2 months is realistic. It will likely be 6
months in the WG. The devil is in the details and some of the details
tend to only pop up at WG last calls. So are we fine with having the
IP and routing data models sitting in the RFC queue for whatever time
it takes to revise, approve, publish 6021 (in my calculation this is
more likely 6 months plus IESG processing plus RFC queue time, so 8-10
months)?

/js

PS: My record so far has been RFC 4789 which took about 6 months from
    initial I-D to RFC published. This was AD sponsored (no WG to
    reach concensus) and a topic most people find kind of esoteric.
    Hence I am questioning the 1-2 months unless we already limit the
    scope of additions to consider for 6021bis.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>