Re: [yang-doctors] New Version Notification for draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis-03.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Rahman <reshad=[e-mail]>
Sent: 02 March 2024 14:17

+1 for option 3. So much of the terminology has changed, it’s not the same model anymore.

<tp>
Yes, I agree with the caveat that there needs to  be a thorough concordance of old and new.  I think that a weakness of some YANG models is that there is too llittle explanation of what has changed and why, for example between the SMI and the YANG versions.  With this more fundamental change then I think that a concordance is vital.

Tom Petch


Regards,
Reshad.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2024, at 12:39 AM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:


Hi,

Speaking as an individual contributor, I'm leaning toward option 3. In case someone implemented RFC 8347, they can choose whether to implement the new model.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:43 PM Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
This BIS document updates the YANG model with IETF inclusive language guidelines as was done with the VRRP protocol specification itself.

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/>
<ietf-logo-card.png>
Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/>
datatracker.ietf.org<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/>


It currently doesn’t conform to YANG backward guidelines. There are basically three options:

    1. Treat the correction of non-inclusive language as necessary bug fix and allow non-backward compatible changes.
    2. Keep all the old non-inclusive data leaves in the model with deprecated status. At some point in future, these could be removed in a new document.
    3. Make this a completely new model - ietf-vrrp-2.yang.

The current individual draft is based on option 1. I had a conversation with Lou and he suggested the 3 third option.

What are people’s opinion on this? Option 2 is my least favorite since it doesn’t complete the job and given how long IETF document take (especially YANG models), I probably won’t be actively participating long enough for the draft which removes the deprecated options.

Thanks,
Acee

On Mar 1, 2024, at 15:31, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

A new version of Internet-Draft draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis-03.txt has
been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:     draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis
Revision: 03
Title:    A YANG Data Model for the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Date:     2024-03-01
Group:    Individual Submission
Pages:    44
URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis-03.txt
Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis/
HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis-03.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis
Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis-03