On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 6:01 AM Jürgen Schönwälder < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Not that important I guess. One would think the "date" typedef already in the draft would be useful, but it isn't, and therefore not used. There is no typedef for the pattern YYYY-MM-DD. /js > Andy > > -- > 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
