Hi, Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > While status-description is not a critical part of this work, it is > still useful, does not harm and is such a small addition, I do not > understand why Martin objects.
Every additional statement adds to the overall complexity. As Jason explained, this particular statement doesn't really help much. /martin > > So why is status-description good: > Sometimes additional information is needed about deprecation, > obsolescence: > - is the item still fully functional? > - when will its functionality be removed? > - when will the schema node itself be removed? > - is there a replacement or workaround that could/should be used instead > - of deprecated/obsolete item? > The text can be used by tools. Using a separate statement to provide > this > information is a method to separate the main description from this > status specific description. > In most cases both in the CLI and on NMS GUIs only the description is > displayed. > However there is a possibility to display the status information too. > > In a way it is similar why we have separate description, contact, > reference, organization statements under module. > All these are just text, they could all be pushed under a single > description statement. Tools can't act on these automatically, still > it is good to separate them. > > Regards Balazs > > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Sterne, Jason > (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > Sent: 2020. április 29., szerda 23:38 > To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]>; > Martin Björklund <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] status-description (WAS Re: mbj review of > draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01) > > I think we could wait until YANG 2.0 to add a description to the > status. > > Without a status description, an intelligent "YANG diff" of the models > would produce this: > a) new status deprecated statement > b) change to a description > > With a status description we'd identify this: > a) new status deprecated statement > b) new status description > > In both cases it is (a) that identifies the most clear information. > > In both cases (b) provides no additional information that can be acted > upon in an automated fashion. The tool could only flag that (b) > occurred in both cases and a human would then have to go look at it. > > If the only change between two versions of a module was a status > description change, then again a human would have to take a look. If > we add some sort of "nbc" tag to the leaf for tooling, then it also > doesn't matter which description changed. > > Jason > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman > > (rrahman) > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 5:43 PM > > To: Martin Björklund <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: [netmod] rev:status-description (WAS Re: mbj review of > > draft-verdt- > > netmod-yang-module-versioning-01) > > > > Hi, > > > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/51 > > > > 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."; > > } > > > > While rev:status-description isn't strictly necessary, without it we'd > > have to modify the node's description as you pointed out. That'd make > > tooling more > > difficult: is the description change BC or NBC? Also, a user looking > > at a diff would need to go through the description change. Use of > > rev:status- description makes this easier to handle. > > > > 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" > > <netmod- [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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
