On 26/06/2018 16:20, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
On 6/26/2018 4:07 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
7) It might want to include a semantic version number for an
instance-data-set, depending on whether the YANG
versioning discussions
ends up.
BALAZS: Yes I would like to. However I am not exactly clear
on what does
backwards compatibility mean for instance data.
Data MAY NOT be removed or changed only added. ???
Who would use the semver numbers ???
What does the version number mean? Every change of instance data
in an
instacne-data-set leads to a new version number? What is a bug fix in
this sense? What is a non-backwards compatible change of instance
data?
I am left a bit puzzled.
Probably I don't mean semantic version. But often files have
versioning, or
revision, information associated with them. This can be muxed into
the file
name/path, but it also seems like potentially useful metadata, and
being
able to handle this generically in a consistent way might be
beneficial.
As an example, perhaps the capability information related to S/W
release
1.2.4, etc.
We need to separate a version number of the instance data from the a
version number (or version context) that may be needed in order to
understand what a YANG (module, path) tuple means if we move to a
different YANG versioning scheme. The later I agree would be needed,
the former I am less sure of - at least if we talk semantic version
numbers.
Yes, I agree with the need for the latter, that may entail listing
the versions of the modules in the meta-data.
But what I was actually referring to was the former, and thinking
more of it is just being a string field in the meta-data with a well
defined name, that is optional to populate. Actually, I see the
current definition already has a revision with a date and description
string. This is roughly along the lines of what I was thinking of
for versioning (although I'm not sure why this should be a list
rather than just a pair of leaves).
Thanks,
Rob
BALAZS: IMHO if we want to use versioning (semver) to version the
instance-data-set itself we first need to understand what backwards
compatibility means for an instance data set.
So, I'm suggesting versioning, but not semver. Just a string version
field. E.g. for XR I would just put in the XR release number "R4.5.1"
or similar.
Revision is a list because as you develop your instance-data-set you
may go through multiple revisions. Just as you may have multiple
revision statements in a YANG Module (YAM) the same way you may need
multiple revision list entries in an instance data set; to keep history.
But I don't see that every instance data document wants to necessarily
publish that history, although of course it could just publish a list
containing a single (the latest) entry.
Thanks,
Rob
(And following your advice, that is one very good reason to define the
metadata about the set as normal YANG instead of yang-meta-data which
does not have the concept of meta-data-array)
regards Balazs
--
Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Senior Specialist
Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email:[email protected]
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
