On 2020-03-30, 5:51 PM, "Martin Björklund" <[email protected]> wrote:
"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.
You are correct that once a branch is poisoned with an 'M', the information
provided is not as rich.
Even though you don't know whether 1.0.3M is BC/NBC with 1.0.2M, you still know
that
- 1.0.2M is NBC with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0
- 1.0.3M is NBC with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0
- 1.0.1 is BC with 1.0.0
Still useful IMO.
Regards,
Reshad.
> 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
