On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:21:01PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:34 PM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All, > > > > 1) If you provided WGLC comments on this draft, please review the -12 diff > > <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-12.txt> to > > ensure that the updates made are good. > > > > 2) Juergen notes below that he also removed the "revision-identifier" > > typedef, as it is better > > defined in the YANG versioning module. Any objections? > > > > > Sorry for the late comment. > I think Juergen listed one option as "rename to revision-date and leave it > in this module". > I support this option. > > There is no chance that the revision date format will be changing any time > soon. > This is useful for general applications because revision date is widely > used. >
The ietf-yang-library module (RFC 8525) currently uses its own definition of revision-identifier. While this module could adopt a common definition, the value of such a change is minor. The question where we place the definition of revision-date is likely a matter of which role we expect the versioning work to play in the future. I am relatively neutral on the placement. /js -- Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
