[netmod] draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00, requirement 1.2

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 04 October 2018 09:36 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 4768C130E05 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 02:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, 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 ky_MRe77lXkO for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 02:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302BA130E0C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 02:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3848; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538645762; x=1539855362; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=J73KW76ctcMUqv8lrX2dFzpzv5TWrl6q+41SvrAp034=; b=KgZsjlH56VYTwkrKoUYNQOuqI8qgE2iGq8gjEypRyvTjdHdrV6WqbKRv 6pY30HDhH0lnpHvd1yVSVgbKwQN9DXNUSpD3h7jtw5ey7j9qLm6ANtv+d oJi2CnPQOnvLkz1QKdfmCBU2dMz7wqzrnVoT7hzOtQldSxm11BatQuosF U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B7AADI3bVb/xbLJq0YAUIaAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQcCAQEBAYFlAoENSIIUhByIdI0mkUKHOw2JMTgWAQMBAQIBAQJtKIV?= =?us-ascii?q?jdQo0Al8BDAgBAReDBoIChwecaIEuH4RYhSGLO4FBP4ESJwyKXoJXAo5ajnw?= =?us-ascii?q?JkDoGF4FMh0iGVYkBhjOGKoFZIYFVMxoIGxWDKJBUPo1HAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,338,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="6990802"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Oct 2018 09:35:59 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.158] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-158.cisco.com [10.63.23.158]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w949ZxtX010492; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:35:59 GMT
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <31e2a1f6-93f3-14bb-3457-30601e43c30f@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:35:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------66AF86CDC08F1CD1D5BADBD1"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.158, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-158.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/hiHb73bCv2nRApgZG1vvnvNKbhs>
Subject: [netmod] draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00, requirement 1.2
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: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:36:04 -0000

Hi Chris,

At IETF 102 you had an objecting to requirement 1.2 in 
draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00, I think because you saw that 
it was either leading towards a particular solution, or that it ruled 
out other potential solutions.

To that end, I would like to ask whether the following text would be 
more acceptable and address your original concerns?

Old:

        1.2  A mechanism is REQUIRED to update a module in a non-backward
             compatible way without forcing all clients/servers to access
             data nodes in the model on new paths, or in a new module
             namespace.  Specifically, if a particular data node is
             updated in a non-backward compatible way then it may be
             desirable for it to be available on the same path and in the
             same module namespace.

New:

    1.2   Non-backward compatible updates of a module MUST not impact
           clients that only access data nodes of the module that have
           either not been updated or have been updated in a backwards
           compatible way.

Thanks,
Rob