Re: [netmod] Balazs Review of draft-ma-netmod-with-system-02

> JANL: I could accept watering down MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT. > BALAZS3: Sorry, I know system-set data has its problems, but my arguments > still stand. > > [Qiufang] SHOULD NOT is fine from my perspective. > > SHOULD NOT is fine from my perspective also. Clearly best practice. The focus sh

[netmod] Question/Suggestion regarding RFC 7950

Hello, I would like to submit a request for a change to section 7.1.9 "The revision Statement" of the YANG RFC. Reviewing current YANG models I have to scroll over 74+ lines of revision statements and 130+ lines before getting to an actual typedef to read the module. This will only continue to

Re: [netmod] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06

Hi, all "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Best Regards Zongpeng Du -邮件原件- 发件人: Benoit Claise [mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com] 发送时间: 2022年4月9日 21:41 收件人: Kent Watsen; Qin Wu; Peng Liu; Zongpeng Du; Mohamed Boucadair 抄送: Liang Geng; netmod@ietf.org 主题: Re:

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:41 PM Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > On 2022-04-14 1:33 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:13 PM Jürgen Schönwälder > > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 20

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi - On 2022-04-14 1:33 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:13 PM Jürgen Schönwälder > wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:48:18PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > The proposal is for a 2 year phase to change modules > that

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:13 PM Jürgen Schönwälder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:48:18PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > The proposal is for a 2 year phase to change modules > > that really do want a zone index. It is not blindly removing the zone >

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi - On 2022-04-14 1:13 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:48:18PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: The proposal is for a 2 year phase to change modules that really do want a zone index. It is not blindly removing the zone index. People not reading type definitions will also

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:48:18PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > The proposal is for a 2 year phase to change modules > that really do want a zone index. It is not blindly removing the zone > index. People not reading type definitions will also not read a warning signs. This is blindly removing t

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:38 PM Jürgen Schönwälder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 09:23:38AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > So is this a correct summary: > > > > - zone index is not used in IPv4 at all > > There are link-local IPv4 addresses, they

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

That does summary below does not match what others have said on this thread. Yours, Joel On 4/14/2022 12:23 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 8:01 AM Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: While RFC 4001 really didn't need to extend the zone index t

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 09:23:38AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > So is this a correct summary: > > - zone index is not used in IPv4 at all There are link-local IPv4 addresses, they are less wide-spread since IPv4 stacks generally do not auto-configure IPv4 link-local addresses. Nobody will be

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi Andy, From: Andy Bierman Date: Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24 PM To: Acee Lindem Cc: Martin Björklund , Juergen Schoenwaelder , "l...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 8:01 AM

Re: [netmod] IP address zones in YANG

From: Lsr on behalf of Rob Wilton (rwilton) Sent: 14 April 2022 13:40 To: netmod@ietf.org Cc: l...@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] IP address zones in YANG Spinning off part of the discussion into a separate thread, but keeping lsr cc’ed on the discussion.

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 8:01 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > While RFC 4001 really didn't need to extend the zone index to IPv4, the > conversation also pertains to IPv6 address types. At least RFC 4001 got it > right by not making the zone index part of the default types and defining > ipv4z and

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

While RFC 4001 really didn't need to extend the zone index to IPv4, the conversation also pertains to IPv6 address types. At least RFC 4001 got it right by not making the zone index part of the default types and defining ipv4z and ipv6z. Thanks, Acee On 4/14/22, 10:04 AM, "Lsr on behalf of M

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

I thought the discussion was only about ipv4? /martin Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:23:31PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > First of all, I agree that if we were to design this from scratch, I > > think we should have a type for just an ip address, and

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:23:31PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, I agree that if we were to design this from scratch, I > think we should have a type for just an ip address, and use a second > leaf for the zone (or interface). > The notation 'fe80::4d9:ff04:4fa6:7980%en0'

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi, First of all, I agree that if we were to design this from scratch, I think we should have a type for just an ip address, and use a second leaf for the zone (or interface). "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I have several concerns with this approach: > > (1) I still think that

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:44:33AM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:52:41PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > > > Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > For me, the only sensible option (other than accepting that types a

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi Martin, I have several concerns with this approach: (1) I still think that the ip-address type name still ends up being non-intuitive (especially for zoned IPv4 addresses - I would be surprised to find that there is any deployment for these at all). I.e., the evidence seems to suggest that

[netmod] IP address zones in YANG

Spinning off part of the discussion into a separate thread, but keeping lsr cc'ed on the discussion. I'm trying to get a better understand of how and where zoned IP addresses should be used in YANG data models. RFC 4007 defines zones for IPv6 addresses, but not for IPv4. Even though RFC 6