Hi,
On 2020-04-28, 11:25 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
"Reshad Rahman \(rrahman\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There was a
>
discussion<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=%22Interpreting%20revision%20labels%20as%20YANG%20semantic%20version%20numbers%22>
> on the need to have an extension which specifies which versioning
> scheme a module is using.
>
> The authors have identified 2 options:
>
> 1. One extension statement with a parameter which specifies the
> scheme being used.
Ok, I understand what this means...
> E.g. revision-label-schema(ietf-yang-semver),
> revision-label-schema(sdoX-yang).
... but I don't understand these examples. I expected something
like:
rev:revision-label-schema yang-semver;
rev:revision-label-schema semver-2.0;
You are correct. I was just using free-form, not the correct syntax.
> We’d need the parameter to be
> registered with IANA.
An alternative could be to use identities:
rev:revision-label-schema ysmever:yang-semver;
rev:revision-label-schema ex:semver-2.0;
Ack, identities also came up during our discussions also. I can't think of any
reason not to use identities in this case.
> 2. One extension statement per
> revision-scheme. E.g. revision-label-scheme-ietf-yang-semver,
> revision-label-scheme-sdoX-yang.
I prefer a single statement.
Good.
Regards,
Reshad.
> The authors have a preference for option 1, we believe it makes things
> simpler. We would like to hear from the WG if there’s any concerns,
> suggestions etc.
/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
