> But it is not true. What happened between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M? It tells you there is an NBC change between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M.
The M gives an indication that a branch has been "poisoned" by an NBC change and that all bets are off from that point onwards in that branch. > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label > statements > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2020-03-30, 2:20 PM, "Martin Björklund" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > That IETF shouldn't use revision labels. > > > > The revision label allows a user to easily figure out whether 2 > > revisions are (N)BC. > > I think you meant "modified semver as revision label allows ..." > > But it is not true. What happened between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M? > > > /martin > > > > Without the label, you always have to use tooling. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > 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)" > > > > <[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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
