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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

See inline. 

On 4/11/22, 5:13 AM, "tom petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    From: Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Reshad Rahman <reshad=[e-mail]>
    Sent: 10 April 2022 21:42

    Inline.

    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 06:04:42 PM EDT, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]> wrote:


    Hi Chris (as WG member),

    On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



        > On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
        >
        > [wg-member]
        >
        > The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was done in the MIB (RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive treatment on this point.
        >
        > If the netmod WG doesn't have the integrity and strength to fix RFC 6991 in the BIS version, we should consider changing the OSPF and IS-IS base specifications before publication to use inet:ip-address-no-zone.

        [as wg-member]

        I think we should do the right thing in our (LSR) modules no matter what, again, what harm does it do to get it right in the modules under LSR WGs direct control?

    Actually this is a very bad idea. We don't want to endorse the error in RFC 6991 that could be fixed in the BIS document. I'm certainly not going to change the documents I authored when the world expects an IP address to not include a zone. I sent an Email to the RFC 9127 BIS (which is currently in IESG review) authors about this issue and apparently they agree with me as they chose not to respond.
    <RR>
    Just way behind on IETF emails. I can't speak for the other authors but I don't agree (too late). But I think we should make the change in 9127-bis. And follow current guidelines, as others have mentioned, to tackle what's in 6991-bis.

    <tp>

    That is the I-D that has just been approved by the IESG!

    I do wonder about BFD.  Single hop IPv6 would seem to be a case for link local even if RFC5881 has a SHOULD NOT for using link local; and IPv6 link local is where the zone may be needed to identify the interface. RFC5881 does not mention zones.

[Acee]
This is probably better discussed on the BFD list but since single-hop BFD is by YANG definition scoped to a single interface, there is no use for zone index independent of the usage of link-local addresses. In fact, no one has been able to point to an implementation of textual convention usage in product configuration. The introduction of zones in RFC 4007 is an interesting but unused esoteric feature. The incorporation of zone in the base RFC 6991 IP address types and the reluctance to fix it is a travesty.  

Acee
[Acee] 

    Tom Petch

    Regards,
    Reshad.

    Thanks,

    Acee

        The netmod change is a much larger action with a large blast radius (not saying it's wrong), and perhaps most importantly is also outside of LSR WG control. :)

        Thanks,
        Chris.
        [wg-member]


        > Thanks,
        > Acee
        >
        > On 4/5/22, 9:33 AM, "Christian Hopps" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
        >
        >    If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, what's the harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically restricting the base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)
        >
        >    Thanks,
        >    Chris.
        >    [wg member]
        >
        >> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
        >>
        >> In the MIB,  the base types don't include the zone - https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4001.txt
        >>
        >> It was very unfortunate that the YANG IP addresses included the zone in the base types.
        >>
        >> Tom - I think it would be hard to find an author where including the zone was a conscious decision.
        >>
        >> Thanks,
        >> Acee
        >>
        >> On 4/4/22, 11:55 AM, "tom petch" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
        >>
        >>  From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
        >>  Sent: 04 April 2022 15:58
        >>
        >>  Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
        >>
        >>  I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 and IPv6 address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone versions should be added as a separate YANG type.
        >>
        >>  The RFC 6991 is under revision now:
        >>
        >>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/
        >>
        >>  However, I'm not sure if the painful backward compatibility discussions could be overcome.  We'd also have to admit that it was a big mistake to include the zone in the base addresses. In any case, I don't think we just start using the no-zone types when the base addresses types are used everywhere.
        >>
        >>  <tp>
        >>
        >>  Well, there are plenty of uses of the no-zone types as well, so some authors, some YANG doctors, have made the conscious choice to use them.  I cannot do a search just now but I see no-zone in the dhc and I2NSF WG I-Ds, and there are others.
        >>
        >>  Also, some authors want the zone information as part of their leaf.
        >>
        >>  Tom Petch
        >>
        >>  Thanks,
        >>  Acee
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>  On 4/4/22, 7:11 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
        >>
        >>      I assume that this is a refresh while waiting for ospf.yang to wind its way through the system
        >>
        >>      I wonder if the ip address should be the no-zone variant from RFC6991 - I never know the answer to that so keep asking.
        >>
        >>      Some time the contact needs updating to https://datatracker and the TLP to 'Revised'
        >>
        >>      Tom Petch
        >>
        >>      ________________________________________
        >>      From: Lsr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
        >>      Sent: 07 March 2022 03:14
        >>      To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        >>      Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        >>      Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
        >>
        >>
        >>      A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
        >>      This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
        >>
        >>              Title          : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
        >>              Authors        : Acee Lindem
        >>                                Sharmila Palani
        >>                                Yingzhen Qu
        >>              Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
        >>              Pages          : 29
        >>              Date            : 2022-03-06
        >>
        >>      Abstract:
        >>          This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF YANG
        >>          model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
        >>          Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362.  OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide
        >>          extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 5340.
        >>
        >>
        >>      The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
        >>      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/
        >>
        >>      There is also an htmlized version available at:
        >>      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
        >>
        >>      A diff from the previous version is available at:
        >>      https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10
        >>
        >>
        >>      Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
        >>
        >>
        >>      _______________________________________________
        >>      Lsr mailing list
        >>      [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        >>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
        >>
        >>      _______________________________________________
        >>      Lsr mailing list
        >>      [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        >>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
        >>
        >>
        >> _______________________________________________
        >> Lsr mailing list
        >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
        >
        >


    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod