Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

[Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

On 2022-04-14 1:33 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:13 PM Jürgen Schönwälder 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:48:18PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
>      > The proposal is for a 2 year phase to change modules
>      > that really do want a zone index.  It is not blindly removing the
>     zone
>      > index.
> 
>     People not reading type definitions will also not read a warning
>     signs. This is blindly removing the zone index in two years, I hardly
>     see a difference from doing the same (damage) today.
> 
> 
> A 2 year advance notice is way more than normal in the open source world.
> 
> There does not seem to be any consensus on the general issues or the 
> specific typedef,
> or even agreement that OpenConfig (and RFC 4001) got it right and IETF 
> got it wrong.
> 
> One set of data models treats a zone index as the normal case, not the 
> exception,
> and the other treats a zone index as the exception.
> 
> Spinning all the YANG modules that use these typedefs is not going to 
> happen,
> and not even clear that would help with multi-SDO integration, given the 
> disconnect
> on the design of the typedefs.
...

Why do you believe it is necessary to revise all the YANG modules that
use the current typedefs?  Have any interoperability problems resulted
from the use of the current definitions?  The argument that not changing
the substance of the current definitions would somehow result in the
need to modify the modules that have used the current definitions is
a paper tiger, I think.

Randy