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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Juergen et. al. ,

> What are our options?
> 
> a) Do nothing and accept that types are called as they are.
> b) Change the types as suggested and accept that doing so breaks
>   modules where zone indexes are meaningful.
> c) Deprecate the types and create a new module defining new types
>   so that modules can opt-in to use better names.
> d) Deprecate the -no-zone types and move back to have a single
>   type for IP addresses.

What’s the value of (d)?  Seems like keeping is better, if only to guide readers towards knowing the base types include zones.  And, besides, any module-designer wishing to restrict zones would then have to create their own “no-zone” types. 


> Any other options?

e) define new types “*-with-zone”
 and deprecate existing “ip*-address” types and recast the “*-no-zone” types as derived from the *-with-zone types?  This way it is always a conscious decision. 



> How are we going to pick between them?

I don’t think Errata works, since 6991 defining the *-no-zone types makes it clear what intended. 


Kent (hatless)