Dear NETMOD WG,
Note the change of WG from NETCONF to NETMOD
Is this something that should be discussed during the Tuesday "NETMOD
YANG Version Discussions " calls?
Regards, Benoit
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:26:06 +0100
From: Alex Huang Feng <[email protected]>
To: Netconf <[email protected]>
CC: Pierre Francois <[email protected]>, Benoit Claise
<[email protected]>, Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
Dear Netconf WG,
I would like to raise a discussion on how this YANG module should be
used and therefore if the current types are the right ones.
First of all, this draft wants to address two main issues:
1. Adds the version or the semver in the stablish-subscription and
modify-subscription rpcs to allow selecting the versionned YANG module
in YANG-push
2. Adds the version and the semver in the subscription-started and
subscription-modified notifications and the subscription datastore to
have the version and the semver in them.
My concern is the following:
In the rpc, the current “revision" is a "rev:revision-date-or-label",
meaning that in the “revision” leaf you can chose either the revision
“2020-01-10” or the semver “1.0.0”. Should this be “rev:revision-date”
instead?
I am asking myself which is the wanted use-case of the different leaves.
I understand that if the "revision-label" is used, there is no need for
the “revision” (in the subscription rpc)?
On the notification side, I do think both are necessary, but the same
issue, the “revision” should maybe be “rev:revision-date”.
Two ways to solve this:
1.
in the rpc: the "revision" being “rev:revision-date” and the
"revision-label” be “ysver:version”
in the notifications and datastore: the revision being
“rev:revision-date” and the "revision-label” be “ysver:version”
OR
2.
in the rpc: only having “revision” leaf being
“rev:revision-date-or-label” and removing "revision-label" leaf.
in the notifications and datastore: the "revision" being
“rev:revision-date” and the "revision-label” be “ysver:version”
Does this make sense? What are your thoughts?
Regards,
Alex Huang Feng
On 17 Jan 2023, at 15:43, [email protected] wrote:
Dear netconf wg,
We addressed in section 4.2 a copy paste error on the yang module and
published the document in the -03 version.
Best wishes
Thomas
A new version of I-D,
draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Thomas Graf and posted to the IETF
repository.
Name: draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning
Revision: 03
Title: Support of Versioning in YANG Notifications Subscription
Document date: 2023-01-17
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 15
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning/
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03
Abstract:
This document extends the YANG notifications subscription mechanism
to specify the YANG module semantic version at the subscription.
Then, a new extension with the revision and the semantic version of
the YANG push subscription state change notification is proposed.
The IETF Secretariat
-----Original Message-----
From: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023
7:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Pierre Francois <[email protected]>; Alex Huang Feng
<[email protected]>; Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-02.txt
Dear netconf wg,
On top of the changes in the -01 version based on inputs from IETF 115
from of Jason Stern and Rob Wilton, we added in section 4.1.2 the YANG
full tree view, added descriptions and resolved some issues in the
YANG module raised by the YANG validation.
On the behalf of the authors I like to request the adoption of the
document to the netconf working group and request a slot at IETF 116
to present an update, discuss and conclude how to progress on
subscription id being mandatory.
Best wishes
Thomas
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
