"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email protected]> wrote: > [As an individual contributor] > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund > > Sent: 28 March 2020 08:43 > > To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/output can be > > reordered > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/47 > > > > > > 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"). > > > > > > > > > Sounds good. JTBC, by descendent you're referring to data nodes > > > (children, grandchildren etc) and not to statements like type and > > > description? > > > > Yes I mean descendant nodes. > > > > > > > Also, could you refresh our memory why the decision was made to > > > preserve order of input/output data nodes? > > > > This is b/c this order is preserved on-the-wire for some encodings > > (like > > XML). > [RW] > > This is slightly on a tangent, but RFC 7950 allows modules to augment > RPC/Action input/output parameters. I'm not aware of any defined > order that augmentations are required to be processed in.
RFC 7950, 7.17.2: When a node is augmented, the augmenting child nodes are encoded as subelements to the augmented node, in any order. > Hence it > seems to me that the order that the client expects and server uses > could end up being different if there are multiple augmentation to RPC > input/output parameters. Correct. This is something implementations must be able to handle. /martin > > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > > > /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
