Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , "netmod@ietf.org" From: Robert Wilton 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:36:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------66AF86CDC08F1CD1D5BADBD1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --------------66AF86CDC08F1CD1D5BADBD1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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


--------------66AF86CDC08F1CD1D5BADBD1--