"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" <mbj+i...@4668.se> wrote: > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> 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?
That IETF shouldn't use revision labels. I am all for using rev:nbc-changes or rev:editorial-changes (which I think should be added) in IETF modules. /martin > > 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)" > > <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of > > rrahman=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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" > > <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mbj+i...@4668.se> 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 > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
