Thanks for the review, Ebben. Some questions and comments below. Draft: - Nit: Would it make sense to at least publish nodes that correspond to the revisions in the example model? [JMC] So that I’m clear, you mean add nodes like “wibble”, “bar”, and “foo” to example-versioned-module so that they are more than just the descriptions of the revisions?
- Nit: Any in flight drafts should be updated to reflect the new `ysv` prefix in use here (e.g. draft-ietf-netmod-yang-packages) [JMC] Indeed. We’ll start to fold that in to packages. - Nit: L#1039 (txt version) - s/define/defined/ [JMC] Thanks! - Regarding initial versions, I see reference to 0.0.1. Seeing as the initial version is backwards compatible additions from nothing and it is not a "patch" bug-fix, doc update, etc.. Should we rather advise 0.1.0 for initial development? (This is the initial OpenConfig publish approach as well) ref: https://semver.org/#how-should-i-deal-with-revisions-in-the-0yz-initial-development-phase [JMC] That seems reasonable. We can make that change. YANG Modules: - Is there a reason that ysv:version is set to 0.20.0 in both modules? I suppose as this draft has progressed, I see a few iterations of this but will be normalized to 1.0.0 or 0.1.0 (or 0.1.1: see above comment) upon publish? [JMC] Correct. I kept updating the YANG Semver as we made changes to the module. But the final intent is that they RFC as 1.0.0. - Nit: Line formatting/breaks for description statements could be cleaned up to align in both models [JMC] Thanks. I’ll lint them. - ietf-yang-semver: Should the encoding of the `extension version` argument that is in the subsequent typedef pattern statement be mentioned or referred here within the description? [JMC] Can you say a bit more here? Are you referring to updating the description of the extension or the typedef? - Nit: ietf-yang-library-semver: I see there are 4 inline definitions of the same leaf for all augments, some w/ slight description differences. Collapse and generalize into a grouping or keep as-is? [JMC] Not a bad idea. I think we can genericize the description such that it can be part of a unified “version” node within a grouping. Joe
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
