(changing subject for a dedicated thread on the filename)
What the draft was mainly trying to achieve (IMO) wrt filename was to have a
standard format/separator (#) when using a revision-label.
i.e. *if* anyone is to use a revision-label, then it should be done with
<module-name>#<revision-label>.yang.
(and some users will indeed like to manage module versions using revision
labels instead of dates – probably most over the long term)
I’m not sure that {date, label} is a required tuple to identify a version of a
module. I see the “keys” more as {module-name, label} OR {module-name,date}.
(where {module-name, label} could theoretically allow multiple revisions in a
single day, although for now we haven’t changed the 7950 requirement that every
module has a unique date)
Jason
From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 8:29 PM
To: Robert Varga <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" drafts
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:10 AM Robert Varga <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 09/05/2023 00.49, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Dear NETMOD WG,
>
> This message begins a joint two-week WGLC for
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-11 and
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-09
> ending on Monday, May 22nd. Neither draft has IPR declared. Here are the
> direct links to the HTML version for these drafts:
>
> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-11
> -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-09
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready
> for publication", are welcome! This is useful and important, even from
> authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this
> time.
Hello, I have reviewed the module-versioning draft and overall it looks
fine (well, aside from the incoming pain :), but we'll cope with that in
due time).
One concern I have is with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-09#name-file-names,
which changes file naming.
Previously the canonical file name included revision -- and now that
information is lost. While I understand the desire for descriptive
names, which are a boon for humans, the until the entire ecosystem
adopts labels, this change is either-or -- and hence tools have to pick
which metadata is more important: label or revision.
Would it be possible to define a format which contains *both* the label
and revision, so as not to pick favorites?
This is an example of an important detail that could be solved differently
if a new YANG language version was used. In YANG 1.1 the revision-date is
optional.
In YANG 1.2, both the revision-date and label could be mandatory.
It is common practice to release YANG changes in multiple release trains
on the same day. So the {date, label} is the unique identifier for the YANG
file,
not some combination of optional parts. IMO the file name you suggest should
be the mandatory-to-implement canonical file name format for YANG 1.2.
[>>JTS:] …snipped out the comments on doing this work in YANG 1.0/1.1 vs
another version of YANG…
Thanks,
Robert
Andy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
