Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

WG, Based on the very good discussion on list and the opinions recorded on the poll, the Chairs want to state that the WG has agreed to: "OPTION 1. Publish an RFC based on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning that updates both YANG 1.0 (RFC 6020) and YANG 1.1 (RFC 7950) to allow YANG mod

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Hi! > Andy Bierman on Thursday, September 14, 2023 18:40: >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:05 AM Acee Lindem >> mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> On Sep 13, 2023, at 10:36, Ladislav Lhotka >>> mailto:40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>> wrote: (...) >>> We have already seen cases that the update ru

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On 13/09/2023 16.36, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:06 Jernej Tuljak napsal(a): If you are asking whether I'd like to see a new version of YANG for the sole purpose of changing those MUST and MUST NOTs - no, I would not. However, a change like this mandates a yang-version bump,

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

bates & discussions). > > > > Jason > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: netmod On Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:35 AM > > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > > > Cc: Jan Lindblad (jl

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:09 AM Acee Lindem wrote: > > > On Sep 14, 2023, at 12:40, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:05 AM Acee Lindem wrote: > >> >> >> > On Sep 13, 2023, at 10:36, Ladislav Lhotka > 40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:0

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

> > From: netmod On Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:35 AM > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > > Cc: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) ; netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach > > > > > >

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

> On Sep 14, 2023, at 12:40, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:05 AM Acee Lindem > wrote: >> >> >> > On Sep 13, 2023, at 10:36, Ladislav Lhotka >> > mailto:40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:06

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:05 AM Acee Lindem wrote: > > > > On Sep 13, 2023, at 10:36, Ladislav Lhotka 40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:06 Jernej Tuljak napsal(a): > >> On 13/09/2023 14:26, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote: > >>> Jernej, > >>> > >>> Hat off for the

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

> On Sep 13, 2023, at 10:36, Ladislav Lhotka > wrote: > > > > Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:06 Jernej Tuljak napsal(a): >> On 13/09/2023 14:26, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote: >>> Jernej, >>> >>> Hat off for the tools (and tool vendors!) that assist authors to stay true >>> to YANG RFC sections 10 an

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

14, 2023 5:35 AM > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Cc: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) ; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or > opening attachments. S

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 01:42:57PM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > I think that for this first poll this is the question that we should > initially focus on. I.e., at a starting point, do you agree to updating RFC > 6020, RFC 7950, to allow changing the MUST to a SHOULD without a new YAN

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On 9/13/2023 4:36 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:06 Jernej Tuljak napsal(a): On 13/09/2023 14:26, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote: Jernej, Hat off for the tools (and tool vendors!) that assist authors to stay true to YANG RFC sections 10 and 11 also. Well done. :-) I inten

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:09 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > [All, don’t forget to vote, discussion here doesn’t count! > https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll] > > > On Sep 12, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > So there is choice between: > > (A) YANG 1.1 and SHOULD NOT > (B) YANG 1

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Dne 13. 09. 23 v 16:06 Jernej Tuljak napsal(a): On 13/09/2023 14:26, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote: Jernej, Hat off for the tools (and tool vendors!) that assist authors to stay true to YANG RFC sections 10 and 11 also. Well done. :-) I intentionally used "compiler" rather than "toolchain"

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On 13/09/2023 14:26, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote: Jernej, Hat off for the tools (and tool vendors!) that assist authors to stay true to YANG RFC sections 10 and 11 also. Well done. :-) I intentionally used "compiler" rather than "toolchain", "IDE" or something more open ended, because a co

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Jernej, Hat off for the tools (and tool vendors!) that assist authors to stay true to YANG RFC sections 10 and 11 also. Well done. :-) I intentionally used "compiler" rather than "toolchain", "IDE" or something more open ended, because a compiler is what I have and can speak for. Even so, I ha

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On 12/09/2023 14:43, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote: Jürgen, all, I see the irony in changing the YANG RFC(s) without updating the YANG language version number, but digging a bit deeper, I think the question is not as clear-cut as it might seem at first. Altering the contents of the backwards-

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

[All, don’t forget to vote, discussion here doesn’t count! https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll] > On Sep 12, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > So there is choice between: > > (A) YANG 1.1 and SHOULD NOT > (B) YANG 1.2 and SHOULD NOT Thanks Andy, this is a succinct way

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Reshad Rahman wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 11:23:55 AM EDT, Andy Bierman < > a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > > WG, > > Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 11:23:55 AM EDT, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen wrote: WG, Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in the following poll:   - https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll  (Datatracker l

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > WG, > > Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in > the following poll: > > - https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll (Datatracker login > required) > > The draft proposed to change many specific MUST and

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Dne 12. 09. 23 v 14:43 Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) napsal(a): Jürgen, all, I see the irony in changing the YANG RFC(s) without updating the YANG language version number, but digging a bit deeper, I think the question is not as clear-cut as it might seem at first. Altering the contents of the ba

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Hi Jürgen, Please see inline ... > -Original Message- > From: netmod On Behalf Of Jürgen > Schönwälder > Sent: 12 September 2023 14:11 > To: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach > >

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

The two options mix things together. Option 1 says updating YANG 1 and YANG 1.1 to allow YANG modules to be modified _based on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning_ but this document has much more in it than just changing a MUST to SHOULD. There are features in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-ve

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

ent: 12 September 2023 13:44 > To: Jürgen Schönwälder > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach > > Jürgen, all, > > I see the irony in changing the YANG RFC(s) without updating the YANG > language version number, but digging a bit

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Jürgen, all, I see the irony in changing the YANG RFC(s) without updating the YANG language version number, but digging a bit deeper, I think the question is not as clear-cut as it might seem at first. Altering the contents of the backwards-compatibility section of RFC 6020 (sec 10) and RFC 79

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

-- > > From: netmod On Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:55 AM > > To: Kent Watsen > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach > > > > > > CAUTION: This is an external

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

t; From: netmod On Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:55 AM > To: Kent Watsen > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking &

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

Hi all, I'd encourage anyone to remind themselves of some of the details around this issue before answering the poll. Summary of options by the YANG Versioning weekly call group: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MSjLKSy7PwjaDkJdnwKREY9KCbc/ IETF 117 NETMOD meeting recording (YANG Ve

Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

I disagree with the poll. There are important teachnigal differences behind the two options that this polls tries to hide. Updating YANG 1 and YANG 1.1 means creating YANG 1' and YANG 1.1'. There is no way that a new versioning approach will be understood by existing YANG tooling. That's an illusi