Re: [netmod] IP addresses with zone indices

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: <netmod@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:34 PM
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
wrote:
>
> > Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:
> >
> > >> > Anyway, I don't understand why such a type would belong to
either
> > >> > ietf-ip or ietf-inet-types.
> > >>
> > >> Because then we can avoid having the same pattern in multiple
> > >> places. What's wrong on such a type? I think it is quite
> > >> comparable to types like "uint32" which also have no special
> > >> semantics.
> > >
> > > My point was that it is not clear why it would be defined in
ietf-ip
> > > or ietf-inet.  There is no ip or inet specific semantics
associated
> > > with this type.  ietf-yang would be a better place for it...  But
see
> > > below.
> >
> > I agree, such a type probably belongs to ietf-inet-types, but we
can't
> > afford a new downref to 6021bis now. The scenario could IMO look
like this:
> >
> > 1. Define this type temporarily in ietf-ip and use where necessary;
> > 2. Add it also to ietf-inet-types;
> > 3. After 6021bis is published, change "ip:dotted-quad" to
> > "inet:dotted-quad" in next revisions of ietf-ip, ietf-routing etc;
> > 4. Obsolete "ip:dotted-quad".
> >
> A: deploying standards is very expensive.  Temporary fixes last 10 -
20
> years around here.
> There is no such thing.  Get it right the first time or pay the price
for
> many years to come.

Yes, or perhaps YES YES YES (with whatever the emoticon is for extreme
anguish).

Perhaps because I have been doing this sort of thing for decades, I have
decades of experience of paying the price, which I would rather not have
had; so yes, get it right first time.

Tom Petch

> B: There happens to be a 6021bis draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt
> It adds 'hex-string' and 'uuid' to ietf-yang-types.yang.
> (A 'Changes Since RFC 6021' section would make that more clear.)
>
> There are many useful typedefs in the common-types.yang module in
> the proposed ACL draft.
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-huang-netmod-acl-01.txt
>
> I don't know how practical it is to re-open 6021 every time the WG
thinks of
> a new typedef to add.  But it seems easier than chartering and
publishing
> new work,
> and it is better for YANG developers to keep the standard types in a
lot
> of random modules.
>
> I don't agree with any of the 4 options above. I prefer:
>
> 5) work on 6021bis for a short time (1 - 2 months) and
> publish reusable data types only in 1 place (6021bis).
>
>
> Andy
>
> Could this work?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >> > For now, I think the quickest way forward is to solve this
separately
> > >> > in each module.
> > >>
> > >> If you define the above type in ietf-ip, then I can reuse it -
> > >> ietf-routing already imports ietf-ip. Would this be any slower?
> > >
> > > Ok, I'd like to make progress, so I am prepared to define this
type in
> > > ietf-ip, and use it for the netmask.
> >
> > Good, I'm going to use it for "router-id".
> >
> > Thanks, Lada
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> >
> > --
> > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

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