Hi, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:50 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi guys, > > As someone who is heavily involved in the development of an extensive YANG > model comprised of submodules, I'm not a fan of mandating that include by > revision is mandatory for submodules. It may indeed be a good idea (so > perhaps SHOULD is fine) but I can see it causing problems on the > implementation side. > > The primary development of a data model may be distributed out to > submodules and the main module may only be a top level container for the > submodules (and rarely touched). This would suddenly create an ordering > dependency in the release process that requires the main module file to > systematically be updated after all development of the submodules is > halted. Then the results of the submodules has to be used to then go update > the module. Solvable - yes, but folks who work on large scale projects will > know that suddenly requiring that type of development process change isn't > as easy as it may sound on paper. > > It is possible to manage the "packaging" of submodules and modules out of > band or other mechanisms. > > I agree with you about SHOULD instead of MUST. The client should rely on the YANG library data for submodule revisions, since the include-by-revision is usually not used. It does seem like a good idea for main module conformance to lock down the submodule revisions expected for a specific main module revision. OpenConfig, for example, uses submodules but does not currently include by > version. I'm not proposing this is ideal. But I think we should leave it as > acceptable. > > Rgds, > Jason > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:46 AM > > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]>; Martin > > Björklund <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > On 2020-05-09, 12:52 PM, "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > Your approach sounds good to me. I was forgetting about the > "editorial" > > level of change (e.g. the 3rd part of SemVer). So I agree that moving a > leaf > > would be an editorial change in both submodules. > > > > But what if a module is not doing include by revision? It may indeed > make > > sense to include by revision but it isn't mandated. For sake of argument > here > > what if the module itself didn't change at all in this case? > > It is now mandated in section 3 of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module- > > versioning-00. > > > > > > It *feels* like the right thing to do here is to consider the module > overall > > to have an editorial change. > > > > The revision statement of sub-modules has a scope of the file (the > sub- > > module). It isn't clear to me whether the revision of a *module* has a > scope > > that includes all sub-modules or if it is just a scope of the module > file. But we > > could clarify that as part of this work. > > Because of include by revision, the module would have to change to > include > > a different revision of a sub-module. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > Jason > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Martin Björklund <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 11:54 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules > > > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
