Subject: Re: [netmod] Y45 again

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:18:18 +0200

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:52:17PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > So you are saying typedef drift is not an issue anymore? Or are you
> > saying typedef drift is an issue for all types except identityref and
> > you just do not like enums and bits be treated differently?
> 
> The latter, but it is not so much that I don't like it, rather that I
> do not understand why it can work for enums and bits, but not for
> other types.
> 
> Also, I think that with the proposed solution, there is no ambiguity
> anymore, even if import without revision is used.
>

Perhaps I am concerned that we break RFC 6643 but then perhaps this is
what we need to do.

/js

PS: There is another subtle thing. Suppose I take a MIB module and I
    translate it to YANG 1.0. Suppose I change the result from YANG
    1.0 to YANG 1.1. Next, the MIB module is updated and I translate
    the updated MIB module again to YANG 1.0 and I do the conversion
    of the result to YANG 1.1. Now I have two YANG 1.1 modules that
    may break the update rules between them even though each
    individual step was correct.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:26:44 +0200 (CEST)

>     individual step was correct.

Note that with my proposed solution this is not an issue.  It is only
a problem if we adopt Y45-02.

/martin