Hi, This came up during this week's meeting. We briefly discussed whether there's a need to version sub-modules or can we restrict versioning to modules only. We would like to hear from the WG on this, especially those with experience managing sub-modules.
For completeness, below is an update from Jason in github: My initial reaction is that we should not preclude the use of revision label with a submodule. Submodules have their own version today. The trick is to define (or explicitly say it is out of scope) whether a module version must change if any underlying submodule versions change. That gets difficult if you consider simply moving a leaf from one sub-module to another (without changing anything else about it - its context, etc). Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-27, 5:44 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi, https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/49 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? Good point. What was meant by that the label space for modules and sub-modules are orthogonal. e.g. the sub-module and module both have the same label, it shouldn't be inferred that the 2 are related. We'll change/clarify the text. 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
