On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:36 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > > > In our YANG versioning work we are proposing that a revision-label is > unique and the revision history of a module must not contain the same > revision-label twice. > > > > We're debating whether we should state the same rule for revision **date** > as well. > > > > RFC7950 doesn't seem to explicitly say that revision date must not be > duplicated in the revision history. > > > > This issue came up recently in an OpenConfig discussion here: > > Updates to OpenConfig types modules. ยท openconfig/public@f20ed84 > (github.com) > <https://github.com/openconfig/public/commit/f20ed8411a6fc1f55c9debed55c852ea4ffef5bb#commitcomment-51076470> > > > > Was it the intention of RFC7950 that a revision history should never have > the same revision date twice ? > It seems that way. How would the duplicates be distinguished within a server? The server cannot advertise "foo@datestring" twice. Import-by-revision cannot identify the 2 revisions with the same date. Andy > > I think it is somewhat inferred from various drafts that describe how a > module name + revision date uniquely identifies a module revision. But it > doesn't seem to be explicitly stated in RFC7950. > > > > If we disallow duplicate revision dates, that makes the module-name+date > tuple unique, but it does mean that authors can't produce 2 versions of a > module in the same day. In theory we **could** do something like this: > > - require unique revision-labels > > - allow duplicate revision dates > > > > But in that case, only the module-name+revision-label can be the unique > identifier for a revision. > > > > Jason > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
