Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8525 (6484)

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> >> Rob, Martin,
> >> 
> >> Wouldn't changing the revision date be a massively
> >> non-backwards-compatible change?
> > 
> > Note that this is in the revision history list.
> 
> I understand. Do you consider changing the revision history a
> backwards compatible change that clients, servers and tools should
> reasonably be able to cope with?

Today we have:

  ietf-yang-library@2016-06-21:
     revision 2016-06-21 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
     }

  ietf-yang-library@2019-01-04
     revision 2019-01-04 {
       description { ... }
     }
     revision 2016-04-09 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
     }


I don't expect any tool to be able to cope with this in any meaningful
way.  The only reason we haven't seen this before is that tools don't
try to use "2016-04-09".

So yes, I think it is ok to do:

  ietf-yang-library@202X-XX-XX
     revision 202X-XX-XX {
       description { ... }
     }
     revision 2019-01-04 {
       description { ... }
     }
     revision 2016-06-21 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
     }

(actually, not just "ok", but the right thing to do...)



/martin


> 
> >> Anyone might be importing this module by revision, and tools could be
> >> hardcoded towards the revision date, given that this is a pretty
> >> fundamental module.
> >> 
> >> What is the (technical) benefit of changing the date?
> > 
> > The idea is that if we ever do a new version of this module, we fix
> > the revision history list in that new version.
> 
> Yes, the description of the idea was clear. I see some potential
> trouble doing this, and so far I haven't been able to think of any use
> case that would benefit from a change. Is there any?
> 
> Correct information is always nice, but changing module identification
> data also leads to confusion. I don't think we should change it unless
> someone can point to some benefits that outweigh the cost.
> 
> Best Regards,
> /jan
> 
> 
> >>> Hi Martin,
> >>> 
> >>> I agree, hold for doc update seems appropriate.
> >>> 
> >>> Any other comments?
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Rob
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: 15 March 2021 09:24
> >>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> >>>> university.de; [e-mail]; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8525 (6484)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Wow, this is obviously a bug.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am not sure it can be fixed with an errata however.  Perhaps "hold
> >>>> for document update"?
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> /martin
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8525,
> >>>>> "YANG Library".
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>> You may review the report below and at:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6484
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>> Type: Technical
> >>>>> Reported by: Jernej Tuljak <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Section: 4
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Original Text
> >>>>> -------------
> >>>>>    revision 2016-04-09 {
> >>>>>      description
> >>>>>        "Initial revision.";
> >>>>>      reference
> >>>>>        "RFC 7895: YANG Module Library";
> >>>>>    }
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Corrected Text
> >>>>> --------------
> >>>>>    revision 2016-06-21 {
> >>>>>      description
> >>>>>        "Initial revision.";
> >>>>>      reference
> >>>>>        "RFC 7895: YANG Module Library";
> >>>>>    }
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Notes
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>> Initial revision of ietf-yang-library YANG module was 2016-06-21, not
> >>>> 2016-04-09.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Instructions:
> >>>>> -------------
> >>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> >>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> >>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> >>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>> RFC8525 (draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-07)
> >>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>> Title               : YANG Library
> >>>>> Publication Date    : March 2019
> >>>>> Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, J. Schoenwaelder, K.
> >>>> Watsen, R. Wilton
> >>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >>>>> Source              : Network Configuration
> >>>>> Area                : Operations and Management
> >>>>> Stream              : IETF
> >>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> netconf mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> netconf mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >>> 
> >> 
>