On 23/07/2018 15:08, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com
<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote:
On 23/07/2018 12:54, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com
<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Chris, Andy,
On 21/07/2018 17:00, Christian Hopps wrote:
As I pointed out at the mic @102 this requirement derives
directly from the 1.x requirement of not changing the
name of the module/namespace. If you allow for changing
the namespace/module name for "major" (i.e.,
incompatible) changes (i.e., like today) then this 3.1
requirement goes away.
Not sure that I agree.
I think that you have made an assumption here that the server
will continue to support both old and new major revision
(with different name) of the module at the same time.
However, these is nothing in the existing YANG upgrade rules
that requires that.
Ultimately, there is a choice whether supporting older module
versions is the servers problem or the clients problem, or
perhaps a combination of the two.
The aim of requirement 3.1 is to ensure that there is a
standard mechanism available so that server implementations
that want the flexibility of supporting older client versions
have a standard way of doing so. My intention is that this
part of the solution would be optional to implement and hence
decided by the market, which is why the text in the
requirement is "to allow servers" rather than "to require
servers".
API versioning is usually done on the message exchanges.
Trying to do the same for datastore contents is not going to work.
A YANG schema can be considered an API. Particularly looking at
say the OpenConfig YANG schema. I doubt all implementations will
store all their configuration and operational state in a central
place.
You can write the word MUST in all caps as many times as you want,
but that will not change anything.
I disagree. Marking a requirement as a MUST means that
requirement has to be met for a solution to be considered viable.
I previously had some text in the draft explaining how RFC 2119
text translates to evaluating the requirements, but was asked to
take it out because it is obvious. Perhaps it should go back in ...
So you can answer the question how YANG validation works when multiple
revisions of a
module are implemented?
Ok, so the scheme that I was considering is:
- The device implements only one version of the schema (i.e. probably
all of the latest modules revisions/versions).
However, the protocols are extended to allow clients to select to use an
older version set of the modules for that session. YANG library for
that session would report the chosen set of modules as "implemented" by
the server for that session.
The server chooses how many different sets of modules are supported, and
exactly what module revisions, features are included in each of those
module sets. Normally I would expect exact module sets to align with a
previous software release. The different module-sets can be exposed via
YANG library bis. New RPCs or protocol extensions are required to
choose which version is being used for the session.
The server then has code to map from the older module set paths to the
latest version that is "implemented" by the device. The vast majority
of the mappings would be trivial mappings of the same value on the same
path.
This mapping is exactly the same as would have to be done on a client if
it has to support servers running different revisions.
Not all changes can be mapped, some would have to just fail (perhaps
could be covered by deviations).
I do not doubt that you can find a leaf somewhere that can
be changed. Not at all convinced the validation rules can be
rewritten to account
for actual incompatible changes, like changing the type of data node
or replacing nodes
with completely different configuration.
The mapping above will not be perfect in all cases, particularly if keys
are changes, or support for software is removed, etc. But they might
still help.
Even less convinced that this complexity is
worth the cost.
Well the complexity ends up going in the client or the server. I think
that this is generally a complex problem to solve. Operators will
likely argue that it is better that the complexity goes in the server to
keep the client simple. Server vendors will likely argue for the reverse.
Note, that I'm still somewhat open to what the right solution should be
here.
Thanks,
Rob
Thanks,
Rob
Andy
Thanks,
Rob
Andy
I think the plan is to reword some of these to get closer
to the intention which I believe is to allow for smoother
transition from one module to the next while making
incompatible but mostly non-impacting changes.
Thanks,
Chris.
Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com
<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> writes:
Hi,
I strongly object to requirement 3.1:
3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to
allow servers to
support existing clients in a backward
compatible way.
This is not what servers do today at all.
They provide only one version of an implemented
module, as specified in RFC
7950.
It is a vendor and operator decision when to upgrade
a server such that
non-backward compatible changes are made. They must
decide if/when it is ok
based on the client applications in use.
This requirement says you cannot make
backward-incompatible changes
which completely contradicts requirements 1.1 and 1.2.
IMO requirement 3.1 should be removed, or change MUST
to MAY
Andy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
