From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> Sent: 22 March 2022 07:11
So we have the following options: a) Leave revision-date to be defined in ietf-yang-revisions. b) Define revision-date in ietf-yang-types. c) Define a date-no-zone type (derived from the date type) which does not have the optional time zone offset. <tp> Yes, I like c) for its simplicity and its adequacy Tom Petch I am leaning towards option c), having a generic type for a date without a time zone is the most general type we can provide. If additional specific revision date semantics are necessary, they can be provided in ietf-yang-revisions. (Looking at the definition of the type revision-identifier in RFC 8525, this is really date-no-zone.) /js On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:42:31AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > 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/> > > -- 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
