On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" <[email protected]> wrote:
"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.
So are you proposing we use some other revision-label scheme (e.g. semver
2.0.0) for IETF modules?
Or that IETF modules shouldn't use revision-labels?
Or do you have something else in mind?
Regards,
Reshad.
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
