Internet DRAFT - draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs
draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs
Network Working Group J. Clarke, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational November 23, 2018
Expires: May 27, 2019
YANG Module Versioning Requirements
draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-02
Abstract
This document describes the problems that can arise because of the
YANG language module update rules, that require all updates to YANG
module preserve strict backwards compatibility. It also defines the
requirements on any solution designed to solve the stated problems.
This document does not consider possible solutions, nor endorse any
particular solution.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Striving for model perfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Some YANG Modules Are Not Backwards-Compatible . . . . . 3
2.3. Non-Backwards-Compatible Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. No way to easily decide whether a change is Backwards-
Compatible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. No good way to specify which module revision to import . 5
2.6. Early Warning about Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Clear Indication of Node Support . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. The Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Requirements of a YANG Versioning Solution . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
This requirements document initially considers some of the existing
YANG module update rules, then describes the problems that arise due
to those rules embracing strict backwards compatibility, and finally
defines requirements on any solution that may be designed to solve
these problems by providing an alternative YANG versioning strategy.
2. Background
The YANG data modeling language [RFC7950] specifies strict rules for
updating YANG modules (see section 11 "Updating a Module"). Citing a
few of the relevant rules:
1. "As experience is gained with a module, it may be desirable to
revise that module. However, changes to published modules are
not allowed if they have any potential to cause interoperability
problems between a client using an original specification and a
server using an updated specification."
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
2. "Note that definitions contained in a module are available to be
imported by any other module and are referenced in "import"
statements via the module name. Thus, a module name MUST NOT be
changed. Furthermore, the "namespace" statement MUST NOT be
changed, since all XML elements are qualified by the namespace."
3. "Otherwise, if the semantics of any previous definition are
changed (i.e., if a non-editorial change is made to any
definition other than those specifically allowed above), then
this MUST be achieved by a new definition with a new identifier."
4. "deprecated indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits new/
continued implementation in order to foster interoperability with
older/existing implementations."
The rules described above, along with other similar rules, causes
various problems, as described in the following sections:
2.1. Striving for model perfection
The points made above lead to the logical conclusion that the
standardized YANG modules have to be perfect on day one (at least the
structure and meaning), which in turn might explain why IETF YANG
modules take so long to standardize. Shooting for perfection is
obviously a noble goal, but if the perfect standard comes too late,
it doesn't help the industry.
2.2. Some YANG Modules Are Not Backwards-Compatible
As we learn from our mistakes, we're going to face more and more non-
backwards-compatible YANG modules. An example is the YANG data model
for L3VPN service delivery [RFC8049], which, based on implementation
experience, has been updated in a non-backwards-compatible way by
[RFC8299].
While Standards Development Organization (SDO) YANG modules are
obviously better for the industry, we must recognize that many YANG
modules are actually generated YANG modules (for example, from
internal databases), which is sometimes the case for vendor modules
[RFC8199]. From time to time, the new YANG modules are not
backwards-compatible.
Old module parts that are no longer needed, no longer supported, or
are not used by consumers need to be removed from modules. It is
often hard to decide which parts are no longer needed/used; still the
need and practice of removing old parts exist. While it is rare in
standard modules it is more common in vendor YANG modules where the
usage of modules is more controlled.
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
The problems described in Section 2.7 may also result in incompatible
changes.
In such cases, it would be better to indicate how backwards-
compatible a given YANG module actually is.
As modules are sometimes updated in an incompatible way the current
assumption that once a YANG module is defined all further revisions
can be freely used as they are compatible is not valid.
2.3. Non-Backwards-Compatible Errors
Sometimes small errors force us to make non-backwards-compatible
updates. As an example imagine that we have a string with a complex
pattern (e.g., an IP address). Let's assume the initial pattern
incorrectly allows IP addresses to start with 355. In the next
version this is corrected to disallow addresses starting with 355.
Formally this is a non-backwards-compatible change as the value space
of the string is decreased. In reality an IP address and the
implementation behind it was never capable of handling an address
starting with 355. So practically this is a backwards-compatible
change, just like a correction of the description statement. Current
YANG rules are ambiguous as to whether non-backwards-compatible bug
fixes are allowed without also requiring a module name change.
2.4. No way to easily decide whether a change is Backwards-Compatible
A management system, SDN controller, or any other user of a module
should be capable of easily determining the compatibility between two
module versions. Higher level logic for a network function,
something that cannot be implemented in a purely model driven way, is
always dependent on a specific version of the module. If the client
finds that the module has been updated on the network node, it has to
decide if it tries to handle it as it handled the previous version of
the model or if it just stops, to avoid problems. To make this
decision the client needs to know if the module was updated in a
backwards-compatible way or not.
This is not possible to decide today because of the following:
o It is sometimes necessary to change the semantic behavior of a
data node, action or rpc while the YANG definition does not change
(with the possible exception of the description statement). In
such a case it is impossible to determine whether the change is
backwards-compatible just by looking at the YANG statements. It's
only the human model designer who can decide.
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
o Problems with the deprecated and obsolete status statement,
Section 2.7
o YANG module authors might decide to violate YANG 1.1 update rules
for some of the reasons above.
Finding status changes or violations of update rules need a line-by-
line comparison of the old and new modules is a tedious task.
2.5. No good way to specify which module revision to import
If a module (MOD-A) is imported by another one (MOD-B) the importer
may specify which revision must be imported. Even if MOD-A is
updated in a backwards-compatible way not all revisions will be
suitable, e.g., a new MOD-B might need the newest MOD-A. However,
both specifying or omitting the revision date for import leads to
problems.
If the import by revision-date is specified
o If corrections are made to MOD-A these would not have any effect
as the import's revision date would still point to the un-
corrected earlier YANG module revision.
o If MOD-A is updated in a backwards-compatible way because another
importer (MOD-C) needs some functionality, the new MOD-A could be
used by MOD-B, but specifying the exact import revision-date
prevents this. This will force the implementers to import two
different revisions of MOD-A, forcing them to maintain old MOD-A
revisions unnecessarily.
o If multiple modules import different revisions of MOD-A the human
user will need to understand the subtle differences between the
different revisions. Small differences would easily lead to
operator mistakes as the operator will rarely check the
documentation.
o Tooling/SW is often not prepared to handle multiple revisions of
the same YANG module.
If the import revision-date is not specified
o any revision of MOD-A may be used including unsuitable ones.
Older revisions may be lacking functionality MOD-B needs. Newer
MOD-A revisions may obsolete definitions used by MOD-B in which
case these must not be used by MOD-B anymore.
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
o As it is not specified which revisions of MOD-A are suitable for
MOD-B. The problem has to be solved on a case by case basis
studying all the details of MOD-A and MOD-B which is considerable
work.
2.6. Early Warning about Removal
If a schema part is considered old/bad we need to be able to give
advance warning that it will be removed. As this is an advance
warning the part must still be present and usable in the current
revision; however, it will be removed in one of the next revisions.
The deprecated statement cannot be reliably used for this purpose
both because deprecated nodes may not be implemented and also there
is no mandate that text be provided explaining the deprecation.
We need the advance warning to allow users of the module time to
plan/execute migration away from the deprecated functionality.
Deprecation should be accompanied by information whether the
functionality will just disappear or that there is an alternative,
possibly more advanced solution that should be used.
Vendors use such warnings often, but the NMDA related redesign of
IETF modules is also an example where it would be useful for IETF.
As another example, see the usage of deprecated in the Java
programming language.
2.7. Clear Indication of Node Support
The current definition of deprecated and obsolete in [RFC7950] (as
quoted below) is problematic and should be corrected.
o "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits new/
continued implementation in order to foster interoperability with
older/existing implementations.
o "obsolete" means that the definition is obsolete and SHOULD NOT be
implemented and/or can be removed from implementations.
YANG is considered an interface contract between the server and the
client. The current definitions of deprecated and obsolete mean that
a schema node that is either deprecated or obsolete may or may not be
implemented. The client has no way to find out which is the case
except for by trying to write or read data at the leaf in question.
This probing would need to be done for each separate data-node, which
is not a trivial thing to do. This "may or may not" is unacceptable
in a contract. In effect, this works as if there would be an if-
feature statement on each deprecated schema node where the server
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
does not advertise whether the feature is supported or not. Why is
it not advertised?
3. Terminology and Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In addition, this document uses the following terminology:
o YANG module revision: An instance of a YANG module, with no
implied ordering or backwards compatibility between different
revisions of the same module."
o YANG module version: A YANG module revision, but also with an
implied partial ordering relationship between other versions of
the same module. Each module version must be uniquely
identifiable.
o Non-backwards-compatible (NBC): In the context of this document,
the term 'non-backwards-compatible' refers to a change or set of
changes between two YANG module revisions that do not adhere to
the list of allowable changes specified in Section 11 "Updating a
Module" of [RFC7950], with the following additional clarification:
* Any addition of, or change to, a "status" statement that allows
a server to remove support for a schema node is considered a
non-backwards-compatible change
4. The Problem Statement
Considering the issues described in the background, the problem
definition can be summarized as follows.
Development of data models for a large collection of communication
protocols and system components is difficult and typically only
manageable with an iterative development process. Agile development
approaches advocate evolutionary development, early delivery, and
continual improvement. They are designed to support rapid and
flexible response to change. Agile development has been found to be
very successful in a world where the objects being modeled undergo
constant changes.
The current module versioning scheme relies on the fundamental idea
that a definition, once published, never changes its semantics. As a
consequence, if a new definition is needed with different non-
backwards-compatible semantics, then a new definition must be created
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
to replace the old definition. The advantage of this versioning
scheme is that a definition identified by a module name and a path
has fixed semantics that never change. (The details are a bit more
nuanced but we simplify things here a bit in order to get the
problems worked out clearly.)
There are two main disadvantages of the current YANG versioning
scheme:
o Any non-backwards-compatible change of a definition requires
either a new module name or a new path. This has been found
costly to support in implementations, in particular on the client
side.
o Since non-backwards-compatible changes require either a new module
name or a new path, such changes will impact other modules that
import definitions. In fact, with the current module versioning
scheme other modules have to opt-in in order to use the new
version. This essentially leads to a ripple effect where a non-
backwards-compatible change of a core module causes updates on a
potentially large number of dependent modules.
Other problems experienced with the current YANG versioning scheme
are the following:
o YANG has a mechanism to mark definitions deprecated but it leaves
it open whether implementations are expected to implement
deprecated definitions and there is no way (other than trial and
error) for a client to find out whether deprecated definitions are
supported by a given implementation.
o YANG does not have a robust mechanism to document which data
definitions have changed and to provide guidance how
implementations should deal with the change. While it is possible
to have this described in general description statements, having
these details embedded in general description statements does not
make this information accessible to tools.
o YANG data models often do not exist in isolation and they interact
with other software systems or data models that often do allow
(controlled) non-backwards-compatible changes. In some cases,
YANG models are mechanically derived from other data models that
do allow (controlled) non-backwards-compatible changes. In such
situations, a robust mapping to YANG requires to have version
numbers exposed as part of the module name or a path definition,
which has been found to be expensive on the client side (see
above).
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
Given the need to support agile development processes and the
disadvantages and problems of the current YANG versioning scheme
described above, it is necessary to develop requirements and
solutions for a future YANG versioning scheme that better supports
agile development processes, whilst retaining the ability for servers
to handle clients using older versions of YANG modules.
5. Requirements of a YANG Versioning Solution
The following is a list of requirements that a solution to the
problems mentioned above MUST or SHOULD have. The list is grouped by
similar requirements but is not presented in a set priority order.
1. Requirements related to making non-backwards-compatible updates
to modules:
1.1 A mechanism is REQUIRED to update a module in a non-
backwards-compatible way without forcing all modules with
import dependencies on the updated module from being updated
at the same time (e.g. to change its import to use a new
module name).
1.2 Non-backwards-compatible updates of a module MUST not impact
clients that only access data nodes of the module that have
either not been updated or have been updated in backwards-
compatible ways.
1.3 A refined form of YANG's 'import' statement MUST be provided
that is more restrictive than "import any revision" and less
restrictive than "import a specific revision". Once non-
backwards-compatible changes to modules are allowed, the
refined import statement is used to express the correct
dependency between modules.
1.4 The solution MUST allow for backwards-compatible
enhancements and bug fixes, as well as non-backwards-
compatible bug fixes in non-latest-release modules.
2. Requirements related to identifying changes between different
module revisions:
2.1 Readers of modules, and tools that use modules, MUST be able
to determine whether changes between two revisions of a
module constitute a backwards-compatible or non-backwards-
compatible version change. In addition, it MAY be helpful
to identify whether changes represent bug fixes, new
functionality, or both.
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
2.2 A mechanism SHOULD be defined to determine whether data
nodes between two arbitrary YANG module revisions have (i)
not changed, (ii) changed in a backwards-compatible way,
(iii) changed in a non-backwards-compatible way.
3. Requirements related to supporting existing clients in a
backwards-compatible way:
3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to
support existing clients in a backwards-compatible way.
3.2 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to support clients
that expect an older version of a given module when the
current version has had non-backwards-compatible changes.
3.3 Clients are expected to be able to handle unexpected
instance data resulting from backwards-compatible changes.
4. Requirements related to managing and documenting the life cycle
of data nodes:
4.1 A mechanism is REQUIRED to allow a client to determine
whether deprecated nodes are implemented by the server.
4.2 If a data node is deprecated or obsolete then it MUST be
possible to document in the YANG module what alternatives
exist, the reason for the status change, or any other status
related information.
4.3 A mechanism is REQUIRED to indicate that certain definitions
in a YANG module will become status obsolete in future
revisions but definitions marked as such MUST still be
implemented by compliant servers.
5. Requirements related to documentation and education:
5.1 The solution MUST provide guidance to model authors and
clients on how to use the new YANG versioning scheme.
5.2 The solution is REQUIRED to describe how to transition from
the existing YANG 1.0/1.1 versioning scheme to the new
scheme.
5.3 The solution MUST describe how the versioning scheme affects
the interpretation of instance data and references to
instance data, for which the schema definition has been
updated in a non-backwards-compatible way.
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
6. Contributors
This document grew out of the YANG module versioning design team that
started after IETF 101. The following people are members of that
design team and have contributed to defining the problem and
specifying the requirements:
o Balazs Lengyel
o Benoit Claise
o Ebben Aries
o Jason Sterne
o Joe Clarke
o Juergen Schoenwaelder
o Mahesh Jethanandani
o Michael (Wangzitao)
o Qin Wu
o Reshad Rahman
o Rob Wilton
7. Acknowledgments
The design team would like to thank Christian Hopps and Vladimir
Vassilev for their feedback and perspectives in shaping and fine
tuning the versioning requirements.
One of the inspirations for solving the YANG module versioning comes
from OpenConfig. The authors would like to thank Anees Shaikh and
Rob Shakir for their helpful input.
8. Security Considerations
The document does not define any new protocol or data model. There
is no security impact.
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft YANG Versioning Requirements November 2018
9. IANA Considerations
None
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC8049] Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki, "YANG Data
Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8049,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8049, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8049>.
[RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module
Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8199>.
[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.
Author's Address
Joe Clarke (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Rd
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
United States of America
Phone: +1-919-392-2867
Email: jclarke@cisco.com
Clarke Expires May 27, 2019 [Page 12]
