On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:42:20PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 06:50:58AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> > > This is what we have today only if modules are updated in legal ways.
> > > The 3.1 requirement says this backward compatibility is maintained even
> > > if the module is updated in violation of the module update rules.
> > >
> >
> > It is stating a requirement. How solutions meet the requirement is for
> > the solutions to figure out.
> >
> > > How would 3.1 be met if the WG decided to just add a new 'datastore'
> > > key leaf to the /modules-state/module list?
> >
> > Depends on the solution I guess.
> >
> > > IMO the current "deprecate and start over" is actually the easiest
> > > and most robust solution path, and it requires no changes to YANG or
> > > the protocols.
> >
> > Yep. But there are people who think that other solutions can do
> > better. The challenge is to find out whether they actually do better
> > or for whom they do better (and if someone has to pay a price for it).
> > For having this discussions, it is good to write down requirements.
> >
> > > > 3.2 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to
> > > > simultaneously support clients using different revisions of
> > > > modules. A client's choice of particular revision of one or
> > > > more modules may restrict the particular revision of other
> > > > modules that may be used in the same request or session.
> > > >
> > > > Today, the version number is effectively an (implicit) part of the
> > > > module name (plus the revision date for backwards compatible changes).
> > > > Hence, my understanding is that today's model does satisfy 3.2 as
> > > > well.
> > >
> > > This is not what we have at all. RFC 7950 says a server can only implement
> > > one revision of a module.
> > >
> >
> > A new version today essentially means a new module name and I do not
> > see a conflict with what I wrote.
>
> Then I think this requirement needs clarification. It says "different
> revision of modules", which can be interpreted as different revisions
> of *the same* module.
>
> Also the second part of the paragraph seems to indicate multiple
> revisions of the same module in the server.
>
> I do not agree with this requirement.
Today, you need to create a new module if you make NBC changes to
existing changes (e.g., you change Bool to Int {0..1} and you are not
creating a new leaf). Since there are now two modules, you _can_
implement both modules if that makes sense.
If we allow to make such changes as part of a module revision, i.e.,
without creating a new module, I think we should not loose the ability
to implement both the old version and the new version.
I think we need to distinguish between the agreement on the
requirement, namely that a server should be able to provide support
for an old and a new definition, and agreement on the solution.
Do you disagree with the requirement? Or do you disagree with the
consequences of implementing multiple versions of the same module
for some of the proposed new versioning schemes? Or both?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
