"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/45 > > o 7.1 > > The text says: > > All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements for > all > newly published YANG modules, and all newly published revisions of > existing YANG modules. The revision-label MUST take the form of a > YANG semantic version number [I-D.verdt-netmod-yang-semver]. > > I strongly disagree with this new rule. IETF modules use a linear > history, so there are no reasons to use "modified semver". > > It is ok to use rev:nbc-changes if needed, though. > > We believe some IETF models may not follow linear history, this was > brought up (I think) for IDR. Modified semver allows for non-linear > history and also doesn't preclude linear history. So even if we end up > having no IETF modules using branching, modified semver still works.
With the clarifiactions and updates in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning, non-linear versioning works without modified semver. So there is no technical reason to use modified semver in IETF modules. I can reluctantly accept that modified smever is published as Experimental. But that doesn't mean that IETF modules should use it. /martin > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" > <[email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will > kick off separate therads for each issue. > > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aupdated-mod-rev-handling > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On 2020-03-10, 3:31 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Here are my review comments of > draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01. > > > > o 3.1.1 > > o In statements that have any data definition statements as > substatements, those data definition substatements MAY be > reordered, as long as they do not change the ordering or any > "rpc" > "input" substatements. > > I think this needs to capture that no descendant statements to > "input" can be reordered. Same for "output" (note, "input" and > "output" in both "rpc" and "action"). > > > o 3.3 > > All revision labels that match the pattern for the "version" > typedef in the ietf-yang-semver YANG module MUST be interpreted as > YANG semantic version numbers. > > I don't think this is a good idea. Seems like a layer violation. > What if my project use another dialect of semver, that wouldn't be > possible with this rule. I think this needs to be removed. > > > o 3.3 > > Submodules MUST NOT use revision label schemes that could be > confused > with the including module's revision label scheme. > > Hmm, how do I ensure that this MUST NOT is handled correctly? What > exactly does "could be confused with" mean? > > > o 3.3 > > In the filename of a YANG module, where it takes the form: > module- > or-submodule-name ['@' revision-label] ( '.yang' / '.yin' ) > > Should this section update 5.2 of RFC 7950? I know that 5.2 just > says "SHOULD". But existing tools implement this SHOULD, and they > need to be updated to handle this new convention. > > But I wonder if this a good idea. It means that a tool that looks > for a module with a certain revision date cannot simply check the > filenames, but need to parse all available modules (wijust to find > the > > > > o 3.4 > > leaf imperial-temperature { > type int64; > units "degrees Fahrenheit"; > status deprecated { > rev:status-description > "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor > of their metric equivalents. Use metric-temperature > instead."; > } > description > "Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit."; > } > > I don't think rev:status-description is necessary / worth it. This > can easily be written with the normal description statement instead: > > leaf imperial-temperature { > type int64; > units "degrees Fahrenheit"; > status deprecated; > description > "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor > of their metric equivalents. Use metric-temperature > instead. > > Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit."; > } > > > o 3.5 > > The example modules should be legal YANG modules. Use e.g. > "urn:example:module" as namespace. > > Also, the modules are missing the last "}", which confuses the > "rfcstrip" tool. > > > o 4.1.1 > > Alternatively, the first example could have used the revision > label > "1.0.0" instead, which selects the same set of revisions/versions. > > import example-module { > rev:revision-or-derived 1.0.0; > } > > Shouldn't this be s/1.0.0/2.0.0/g ? > > > o 5 > > I think the module name "ietf-yl-revisions" should be changed to > "ietf-yang-library-revisions". "yl" is not a well-known acronym. > > > o 5.2.2 > > Wouldn't it be better if the leaf "deprecated-nodes-implemented" and > "obsolete-nodes-absent" were of type "boolean" rather than type > "empty"? > > > o 7.1 > > The text says: > > All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements for > all > newly published YANG modules, and all newly published revisions of > existing YANG modules. The revision-label MUST take the form of a > YANG semantic version number [I-D.verdt-netmod-yang-semver]. > > I strongly disagree with this new rule. IETF modules use a linear > history, so there are no reasons to use "modified semver". > > It is ok to use rev:nbc-changes if needed, though. > > > o 7.1.1 > > There is a missing " in: > > 4. For status "obsolete", it is RECOMMENDED to keep the "status- > description" information, from when the node had status > "deprecated, which is still relevant. > HERE -----------^ > > > o 8 > > s/CODE ENDS>/<CODE ENDS>/ > > > o Both YANG modules > > All extensions should specify the grammar; i.e., in which statements > they can be present and which substatements they can have. > > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
