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

[Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

On 2022-04-08 5:11 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
..
> Instead, Acee (I'm not sure I'd call him WG B :) is asserting that 
> *nobody* actually wanted the current type, and it has been misused 
> everywhere and all over. The vast majority of implementations in 
> operation probably can't even handle the actual type (Andy's point). So, 
> Acee is just the messenger of bad news here. Please note that the AD in 
> charge of all this agreed with Acee as well.

That's not the impression one gets from modules like
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-10.txt
which employs both types.  So, regardless of whether one is willing
to respect YANG's compatibility rules, it's no longer a matter of
speculation whether a name change would cause actual damage -
it clearly would.  Furthermore, my recollection is that the
WG *did* discuss whether the "zonable" property was needed, so
any argument based on the assertion that "*nobody* actually
wanted the current type" seems to me to based on a false premise.

Randy