Christopher Inacio has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-11: No Record
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the short and concise draft. Thanks to Barry L., and Joel H. for their reviews. (Both caught the ABNF notation issues about semver / date.) I would like to echo Éric's comments about if this draft intends to recommend making two copies of the same YANG module? >If the YANG module (or submodule) has an associated YANG semantic version (ysv:version), then a file name that use the YANG semantic version MUST be created. In addition, a file with the revision date in the file name MAY be created as well. That is what that paragraph says unless I'm really mistaken. I don't know what to make of Section 2.1. The SemVer will indicate some amount of compatibility, but then everything else is caveat emptor? How would this file naming standard help when there are multiple competing versions? The working group absolutely wants IANA to create 2 entries for each YANG module that has a SemVer version attached AND wants IANA to ensure that the contents of the modules are identical? What does identical mean in this case? Byte-by-byte equivalence? _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
