On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:10 AM Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> 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.
I understand it could be a bad idea to start over with the yang-next list
and "work on YANG 1.2".
IMO there are only a small number of must-haves on that list, and most
issues
could be deferred. YANG 1.2 could be derived from these 2 drafts + a small
number of yang-next issues.
In the current form, I do not agree that the YANG module revision update
rules
should be updated without changing the yang-version value.
Thanks,
> Robert
>
Andy
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
