Hi,
On 2020-05-08, 5:12 PM, "Martin Björklund" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes I think this is needed. At tail-f, there are several modules with
many submodules. These modules always use include by revision, and
always the main module is always uddated when any submodule is
updated. It doens't make much sense IMO to not use include by
revision.
> 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).
Why would this be difficult? The revision date is updated on any
editorial change (see 7.1.9 of RFC 7950). So if a leaf gets moved
from submodule A to submodule B, then their revisions are udpated, and
hence the module's include-by revision is udpated, and hence the
module's revision ois updated.
I think what Jason meant is that by moving a leaf between submodules, it's
possible the module's schema didn't change.
So yes revision date is updated, but you can't blindly update the
revision-label.
Regards,
Reshad.
/martin
>
> 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
