I was going to say something similar. We agreed on a set of requirements ahead of the module versioning and other work that included a mechanism that would indicate that an NBC change had been made. Simply allowing them without it would more chaotic to consumers.
Joe From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Reshad Rahman <reshad=40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:11 To: Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university>, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <jason.ste...@nokia.com> Cc: Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net>, netmod@ietf.org <netmod@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG Versioning: discussion around 7950 bis or errata (from Key Issue #1) +1 Jason. From an IETF process pov, yes the most expedient thing to do is to replace MUST with SHOULD. While this may be good for the IETF, it makes things worse for consumers/clients of YANG models: it'd allow NBC changes without any indication that NBC changes have been made! Regards, Reshad. On Thursday, September 28, 2023, 04:57:46 PM EDT, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote: Hi all, IMO - We've already started moving out of the "stuck" situation. We no longer have to debate whether a new YANG 1.2 is needed for allowing an NBC change. That will be the end of a big distraction and circular discussions for the WG. I'm not so convinced we want to rush and do a separate RFC just for that one part of Module Versioning (and one part of the original versioning requirements). It is a key/critical part, but we should continue discussing what other parts we'd want to also tackle as part of the "first" versioning RFC. I'm very doubtful we should relax MUST to SHOULD NOT without also at least making the rev:non-backwards-compatible marker mandatory (as per Module Versioning). The marking is a key part of making this all better for consumers of modules and clients (one of the main problems is the current silent NBC changes happening). We should also clarify that marking an element as "status obsolete" is NBC. That has major impact on clients who are trying to continue using an old version of the module. (and there are likely at least a few other pieces from Module Versioning that should be in a "first" RFC) Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 9:12 AM > To: Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> > Cc: Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net<mailto:k...@watsen.net>>; > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG Versioning: discussion around 7950 bis or errata > (from Key Issue #1) > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or > opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. > > > > The truth is that we did bug fixes in the past. We now have maneuvered > us into a situation where work is put on hold because we do not even > do bug fixes anymore (and yes, I know, the line between bug fixes, > alignment with moving targets and other changes is vague and needs to > be decided on a case by case basis). The fastest way to get unstuck is > to write this one page content RFC that changes MUST to SHOULD and > then we at least get out of the being stuck situation. > > /js > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:00:23PM +0000, Reshad Rahman wrote: > > As a client (consumer of models), I do not want only the MUST -> SHOULD > change, IMO that would be worse than the current situation. > > Regards,Reshad. > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 09:16:10 PM EDT, Kent Watsen > <k...@watsen.net<mailto:k...@watsen.net>> wrote: > > > > This was my thought as well, that it would be best to have the > > smallest-possible > draft update 6020/7950. That way, when someone follows the “Updated” links, > they’re not overloaded with material that could’ve been left out. > > Jason was saying that just doing MUST/SHOULD by alone isn’t great, that at > least the "rev:non-backwards-compatible” extension statement should be > included and, by extension I suppose, the rules for editing the revision > history. > Presumably revision labels could be left out. IDK what minimal is possible. > > K. // contributor > > > > > > > > On Sep 27, 2023, at 7:06 PM, Rodney Cummings > <rodney_cummings_...@hotmail.com<mailto:rodney_cummings_...@hotmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > It is easy to write a short RFC updating RFC 7950, changing one sentence > > from > MUST to SHOULD. > > > > > > I agree. I found that I cannot enter a response to the poll, because I > > disagree > with both Option 1 and Option 2. > > > > My concern is that there are many people out there who are implementing > YANG, but who do not follow discussions on this mailing list. I'm concerned > that > there is a serious risk that those people will interpret the change from MUST > to > SHOULD as "backward compatibility is irrelevant for YANG". We all know that > the > concern is about bug fixes and so on, but without explaining that in a short > and > focused manner (i.e., the short RFC described above), that will be lost in > the noise > of the larger draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning change. > > > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning is a great draft, but I think it > > should > move forward as an independent RFC, distinct from the MUST/SHOULD change. > > > > Rodney Cummings > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> On > > Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 5:24 PM > > To: Jason Sterne (Nokia) > > <jason.ste...@nokia.com<mailto:jason.ste...@nokia.com>> > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG Versioning: discussion around 7950 bis or errata > (from Key Issue #1) > > > > It is easy to write a short RFC updating RFC 7950, changing one sentence > > from > MUST to SHOULD. This is inline with the goal to not change the language, > i.e., to > keep the version numbers. > > > > /js > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 03:00:19PM +0000, Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote: > > > > Hello NETMOD WG, > > > > We've had a poll going for a few weeks to determine if we require YANG 1.2 > > for > allowing ("SHOULD NOT") NBC changes (see "Poll on YANG Versioning NBC > Approach"). > > > > As part of that, some discussion has happened on the list around > > potentially doing an errata for RFC7950/6020 or a bis of 7950/6020 (if > > rough consensus is reached for option 1 of the poll) > > > > 7-8 of us discussed this in the YANG Versioning weekly call group today. > > > > First of all: this question of mechanics (errata vs bis vs Module > > Versioning draft) > is orthogonal to the poll. Let's first and separately resolve the poll and > confirm if > we need YANG 1.2 or not (that's the fundamental question the poll is > resolving - > everything else is a subsequent issue to be discussed). We'll let the chairs > confirm > when/if rough consensus on the poll has been reached. > > > > But *if* the answer to the poll is option 1, then the weekly call group was > unanimous that we should not do an errata for RFC7950/6020 and we should not > do a 7950/6020 bis. We should just continue with the Module Versioning draft > which will update 7950 and 6020. > > > > The primary reason is that we shouldn't just change MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT > without also tying it together with the mandatory top level rev:non-backwards- > compatible extension when an NBC change is done. Changing the NBC rule to > SHOULD NOT needs to be in the same RFC as the mandatory rev:non-backwards- > compatible tag. > > > > Other reasons: > > > > * an errata probably isn't correct since this isn't fixing an intent that > > was > present back when 7950 was written (it was clearly the intent at the time to > block NBC changes) > > * a bis would be odd without actually introducing other changes to YANG > > and > changing the version (this discussion is all based on "if the answer to the > poll is > option 1") > > > > Jason (he/him) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > > https://www.i/ > > > etf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetmod&data=05%7C01%7C%7C22464d2aa09 > 441 > > > f1b1bd08dbbedf65ad%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6 > 38313 > > > 638956186415%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj > oiV2luM > > > zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DgsZVlBTQt > qJjR > > tVXs%2Bze%2BrOanijgDEuCn93gbN9Jyw%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > -- > > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > -- > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
