Please see inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Björklund <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:51 PM > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label > statements > > "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > No. As you note below it says that all bets are off. The change > between these two could be a spelling error fix. Hence, Reshad's > statement that "The revision label allows a user to easily figure out > whether 2 revisions are (N)BC." is not correct.
[>>JTS: ] You are correct and I made a mistake in my reply (looked too quickly). The M gives you one chance to indicate a NBC change in a branch. After that you no longer know (i.e. no worse than no revision label at all). it is a compromise that allows: - knowledge about the nature of changes on a branch that hasn't been poisoned yet - one chance to alert users that an NBC change was made on a branch That is useful enough to have it IMO. > > > 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. > > > /martin > > > > > > > -----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
