On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 7:41 AM Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> wrote:
> > > The idea to encode all relevant semantics of a type in a type's name >> has far-reaching consequences: >> >> - Are we going to deprecate counter32 and introduce >> non-zero-based-counter32 because we have also zero-based-counter32? >> >> - Do we introduce date-and-time-with-optional-zone-offset and >> deprecate date-and-time? >> > > I wish we had guiding principles for such naming decisions or, perhaps, it > is a matter of the type's definition. > > The current date-and-time is not ambiguous because it asserts that either > a 'Z' or an offset is present, making impossible for implementations to > assume a zoneless form. Whereas the current ip-address is ambiguous > because it silently accepts the "without" form, leading to surprise in some > implementations when the expanded form is "unexpectedly" passed. > > Having well-defined guidance could prevent future missteps. > > > > The definition of ip-address (published in 2010) was the right thing >> to do since the optional zone index can disambiguate IP addresses in >> situations where this is needed. In 2013, we also provided the >> ip-address-no-zone definition to be used in situations where there is >> never a need to disambiguate IP addresses (e.g., when the zone is >> known from the context). > > > > Trying to focus just on this proposal, not extrapolate the trend... > > For 10 years we have had 2 typedefs for IP address: > > - ip-address > - ip-address-no-zone > > This should be enough (even without reading the module!) to determine > 1 form has a zone, and 1 does not. > > But nobody reads the YANG module so they didn't know about > ip-address-no-zone. > So how will they know about ip-address-zone either? > > > Because tooling would flag "ip-address" as deprecated and the description > statement would say to use the "with-zone" form? > > There is no reason to deprecate something to replace it with the exact same semantics, but a different name. The only reason to deprecate something is because it will be removed in the future, Deprecating and obsoleting such a critical data type would be highly disruptive. Many vendors and SDOs may refuse to do it. > > YANG Catalog search shows 1486 modules import the ip-address typedef. > I suspect the number is about twice that. > > So we want to tell the world: > > "You have to stop using ip-address and use this new type instead". > > "Why? What's wrong with it?" > > "Nothing. We decided after 13 years we like this name better." > > > A number of issues were raised (misconfigurations, OpenConfig, etc.). > > What are these operational problems that are caused because of the name ip-address? IMO it would be far worse to take away the most important typedef in YANG. We have never heard any issues at all from customers about problems implementing ip-address. As Martin pointed out, the server MUST check for values such as 0.0.0.0 that are accepted by the typedef pattern but not the leaf semantics. Checking for a zone index is no different. The ip-address typedef has been clarified in the draft update. That is sufficient. > > > Kent // contributor > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
