Re: [netmod] missing YANG versioning requirements

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 12 November 2018 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 8890E130E16 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:01:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KRysQW_ZkrxP for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9143130E14 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:01:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4976; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1542034866; x=1543244466; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=3X0SX6bu+nZTDoZ8gazRc/+jS8MABhLCjJ0w8USZpOM=; b=CtBuaLHP3nWWEFoc99WCmuS6xSg+ltE/wVzRHQW7rG59ShVZX+XTb0N6 dxfdRMqDjhTOpJ5+LAnKfnCfK3/DHuef4KrMiyIWzi9Tvwl8+75t1xOVl 3Kh6DtCMenAx945c2uaA5pT5nH5+x0IOUdjU009cPXS0+Qi9ab6B2zDfg Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AUAABSlOlb/xbLJq1jGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVAIBAQEBCwGCaXASJ4N4YogVjHstkWGFaIFmDRgBCoQDRgKDTjcKDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhToBAQEBAgEBAQwVQgkbCwQUFRUCAicwBgEMBgIBAReDBgGBeQgPqVSBLx+FH4RYBYwXgUA/gREngmuDGwEBgRwvVYJFglcCn08JkRcGGIFYh36HGolah0aGWIFZIieBLjMaCBsVO4JsixyFPj8DMI4WAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,495,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="7935960"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Nov 2018 15:01:03 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.62] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-62.cisco.com [10.63.23.62]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wACF13Gh019550; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:01:03 GMT
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <CABCOCHQG0kCXUVqD9OBfmsAvFTgwzDzV8MP0=PRYHgiJR_Uvqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5d8a14f4-94a9-c6eb-4a7c-6d6a155e0c84@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:01:03 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQG0kCXUVqD9OBfmsAvFTgwzDzV8MP0=PRYHgiJR_Uvqg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------126A62893C7B24B0EB027412"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.62, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-62.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/fwXnbleFcZaKQLhoQKTw3hv4pf8>
Subject: Re: [netmod] missing YANG versioning requirements
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Nov 2018 15:01:09 -0000


On 09/11/2018 18:35, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the requirements doc should state that
>
> 1) there are many more readers, operators, and client developers than
> server developers so the solution MUST take into account the numbers
> of people affected when finding a balance between client and server 
> complexity.
OK.  So you would like the solution to be weighted towards clients, but 
yet you do not want servers to have to implement any sort of version 
selection, instead pushing the problem on to the client? :-)

More seriously, I'm looking for a solution where we it up to the market 
to decide whether the complexity should be pushed to client, server, or 
a 3rd party controller.  I think that some sort of version selection 
should be able to achieve this.


>
> 2) if existing protocol and YANG solutions exist then they MUST be used
> in favor of developing new solutions.
If you replace the "MUST" with a "SHOULD" then I sort of think that this 
one is obvious.  I think that we are only trying to develop next 
solutions where the existing ones do not appear to be working well.  
There are examples in the earlier text in the requirements draft, and 
also draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update to provide the background and 
justify why we need to do something different than the status quo.

Thanks,
Rob


>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod