> On Oct 20, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Joe Clarke <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> * New requirement 1.4 for supporting over-arching software releases
[ I read this as supporting various different module versions based on a
vendor's different software release trains. If this is wrong then the rest of
this doesn't apply and I would just ask for the text to be update to clarify
what it means. ]
How many operators/users have asked for this or indicated it's a requirement
for them?
What problem is intractable without this requirement being met, and what is the
cost of this requirement on the actual users?
I have pushed back multiple times on this b/c I believe this "requirement" is
really being pushed to make it easier for vendors (a small affected group) to
develop their software at the cost of their users (the much larger affected
group) who would then have to deal with multiple trains of the same module.
Here is what I am afraid the vendors want here: A developer on release train X
can easily change some data structure and then push the change into an
automated system which generates a new YANG module definition and revs a
version number -- all done! They don't have to deal with the inertia of making
this change in their release train Y or Z and they don't have to treat modules
as a stable API they are exporting, b/c they now have these new wonderful
versions from this work. Meanwhile we the users now have to deal with N forks
with all the various little incompatible changes random developers at the
company wanted to make without having to coordinate with their coworkers/other
internal teams. Now multiply this by M vendors. It's a nightmare. It shouldn't
be what we are optimizing for, let alone making a requirement.
We already have features and deviations why are they not enough to deal with
functionality that is present or not in various software release/devices?
FWIW I'm not against making it easier to develop software, but we have to be
mindful if we are just pushing the cost (and magnifying it greatly) to other
people in the community.
Thanks,
Chris.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
