Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Mon, 30 January 2023 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 73192C1527AE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:17:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b="iSvPLUTT"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="FTzr1DBC"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9goyRe5nKcsH for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDF10C15257C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3509A3200AC3; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 05:17:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 30 Jan 2023 05:17:52 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1675073871; x= 1675160271; bh=6vRJHcwoQ9vqCrZwYMfjuRWpetHdOasJsG4pohLluQc=; b=i SvPLUTTC0zTNgOziFANvF1zWVkNIdq/SRxWSHNEj8M38gndyI2IJgByvF8Ut+ADA t5svA6tBkHfIWydDrtdYEcZwW/jhITlpfeupYv0ITgm9gm3dIUZxQjDjWmXpeBQi t53KmskeLGmyE8EIX4HzIhZ2rb2vXjIYAXp0iIYnfs3U9xrg4+7HTdwiAh7/tSql Vn0sx/nctZ81SPXePpVVUB/81v+pVimYBtGbapJZ1Z52390HY/kRaO9nG5Vl6v0O qJRQblBpn8KPkVH2HywE67ZObR+aCbSl+M/lYlVnpNnpSJqNzuCY6L/cmfLu/Ica UAYi7Ct+zBbfehyOSplAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1675073871; x= 1675160271; bh=6vRJHcwoQ9vqCrZwYMfjuRWpetHdOasJsG4pohLluQc=; b=F Tzr1DBCaHppjGTVQKz2FrN/k7SIp1l4bLkd16WVy+styIbqcdFJaWXI48I0+ecga SoFHm67wtTGYKE7+FdSGdtWJ0NGtZxo4g1iMc2IuFJdChLDDd3iJ9YS3IBLj1Tyr ZrfHTq9ZBN05WlT/LqW1cnKPsettznhNrDkFAZ+9DgIVGTOr4UzwjzZr2C8BmkYg O3XxlE9DHqtlHYZ3cvta8csr1bt9X6GRlupAUwTWZXiialldV2I68xeMBFy+cMV/ gSmNQKd4oDwvvsYUt4cFDNxLw/VZN/3GJZvjkdQ5Y2u+O/DrGxZN8FZGJEhRPDIw CdYhv3G9u7skwZO9ghEWw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:T5nXY8jY1oYvCmwUDGb1Gss6M0qgcBkunJKTMaWFVdnZfDyDb2ygbA> <xme:T5nXY1AZlACftI31yN4cwUCUmlw0MyNlJO-U9nV9IhViEbTxbDM-Lhw7p2yAuaIwW bRFfxLkcPN28PZg45A>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:T5nXY0H_7PpJFMui0q40Qc2D6VOgg3fADKvZE3KCRs6a-sslQ9Miho5eWSTr2WsFvCbO9dLPucWyhLQaAL6soVMl9M8mG83bVQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudefvddgudehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkffvvefuhfgjfhfogggtgfesth gsredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdo ihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhfedvtdeifeffheduje dvieffheelgefggeeukedufffgkeegtdffleelgfetveenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhf rdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:T5nXY9SADLeOrjlFxfErmWhzlX7bdyZUhCsi2RhnJSn8NDjLaAbnWA> <xmx:T5nXY5wWxQMBHD7oYURtwjBm0BDmJHz2Sg60PbI3PY3rQTGvxeAxwA> <xmx:T5nXY75k8U1t-9sZMxMttPxODkBPZwQVZTUZ9MSTCa6snzaKsRfWLA> <xmx:T5nXY6pSm8LmPu8U7tmI8tCc6n-dE_AUi0jtNMM7na3z4WZvkgJQoQ>
Feedback-ID: icc614784:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 05:17:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 11:17:47 +0100
Message-Id: <20230130.111747.94987242747910439.id@4668.se>
To: jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si
Cc: Italo.Busi@huawei.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <5d09aa66-d0fa-719c-a00e-590aff8202fd@mg-soft.si>
References: <368f8c81-a67b-4ca0-0a61-963acd54b043@mg-soft.si> <54933ec7333e44e4adf5dd2cf1dc22db@huawei.com> <5d09aa66-d0fa-719c-a00e-590aff8202fd@mg-soft.si>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/eTGe9k2X5YW5pFmPPWkAl0SX0m4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:17:58 -0000

Hi,


Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si> wrote:
> On 30/01/2023 10:19, Italo Busi wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the intention is not to change the semantic of bar but to
> > introduce a more “restricted” identity from which bar could be derived
> >
> > Something like introducing an identity for italian-car in between car
> > and Ferrari identities
> >
> 
> I understand your intention. I do not understand the intention behind
> text in RFC 7950, however.
> 
> My clarification request was aimed at RFC 7950 authors and whether a
> revision like this could be considered as not changing the semantics
> of the original identity definition because:
> 
>    Otherwise, if the semantics of any previous definition are changed
>    (i.e., if a non-editorial change is made to any definition other
> than
>    those specifically allowed above), then this MUST be achieved by a
>    new definition with a new identifier.
> 
> So, RFC authors: Is "NEWB:bar" definition semantically equivalent to
> "OLD:bar" definition?

I think that this change isn't allowed according to RFC 7950, but it
should have been.  If there ever is a new version of YANG, this should
be fixed.

The quoted text says:

  if a non-editorial change is made to any definition other
  than those specifically allowed above, then this MUST be achieved by a
  new definition with a new identifier

This is a non-editorial change that is not "specifically allowed
above".


/martin



> 
> Jernej
> 
> > Italo
> >
> > *From:* Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
> > *Sent:* lunedì 30 gennaio 2023 08:51
> > *To:* Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base
> >
> > On 27/01/2023 17:54, Italo Busi wrote:
> >
> >     According to section 11 of RFC7950, the following change is
> >     considered BC:
> >
> >        o  A "base" statement may be added to an "identity" statement.
> >
> >     Since, as explained in section 7.18.2 of RFC7950, the derivation
> >     of identities is transitive, my understanding is that replacing a
> >     "base" statement with new  "base" statement which is derived from
> >     the previous one is also a BC change.
> >
> >     Considering the example below, the NEW (A) change is BC according
> >     to section 11 of RFC7950. However, NEW (B) is equivalent to NEW
> >     (A), since the new baz is derived from foo, and therefore it is
> >     also a BC change.
> >
> >     Is my understanding correct?
> >
> >
> > I'd like a clarification regarding this as well.  Is "NEWB:bar"
> > definition semantically equivalent to "OLD:bar" definition?
> >
> > Jernej
> >
> >
> >     Thanks, Italo
> >
> >     OLD
> >
> >     identity foo {}
> >
> >     identity bar {
> >
> >       base foo;
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     NEW (A)
> >
> >     identity foo {}
> >
> >     identity baz {
> >
> >       base foo
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     identity bar {
> >
> >       base foo;
> >
> >       base baz;
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     NEW (B)
> >
> >     identity foo {}
> >
> >     identity baz {
> >
> >       base foo
> >
> >     }
> >
> >     identity bar {
> >
> >       base baz;
> >
> >     }
> >
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >
> >     netmod mailing list
> >
> >     netmod@ietf.org
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >