Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/output can be reordered

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/47
> 
>         o  3.1.1
>         
>             o  In statements that have any data definition statements as
>                substatements, those data definition substatements MAY be
>                reordered, as long as they do not change the ordering or any "rpc"
>                "input" substatements.
>         
>           I think this needs to capture that no descendant statements to
>           "input" can be reordered.  Same for "output" (note, "input" and
>           "output" in both "rpc" and "action").
> 
> 
> Sounds good. JTBC, by descendent you're referring to data nodes
> (children, grandchildren etc) and not to statements like type and
> description?

Yes I mean descendant nodes.


> Also, could you refresh our memory why the decision was made to
> preserve order of input/output data nodes?

This is b/c this order is preserved on-the-wire for some encodings
(like XML).


/martin



> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail] on behalf of rrahman=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Martin,
>     
>     We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick off separate therads for each issue.
>     
>     https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aupdated-mod-rev-handling
>     
>     Regards,
>     Reshad.
>     
>     On 2020-03-10, 3:31 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>     
>         Hi,
>         
>         Here are my review comments of
>         draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01.
>         
>         
>         
>         o  3.1.1
>         
>             o  In statements that have any data definition statements as
>                substatements, those data definition substatements MAY be
>                reordered, as long as they do not change the ordering or any "rpc"
>                "input" substatements.
>         
>           I think this needs to capture that no descendant statements to
>           "input" can be reordered.  Same for "output" (note, "input" and
>           "output" in both "rpc" and "action").
>         
>         
>         o  3.3
>         
>             All revision labels that match the pattern for the "version"
>             typedef in the ietf-yang-semver YANG module MUST be interpreted as
>             YANG semantic version numbers.
>         
>           I don't think this is a good idea.  Seems like a layer violation.
>           What if my project use another dialect of semver, that wouldn't be
>           possible with this rule.  I think this needs to be removed.
>         
>         
>         o  3.3
>         
>             Submodules MUST NOT use revision label schemes that could be confused
>             with the including module's revision label scheme.
>         
>           Hmm, how do I ensure that this MUST NOT is handled correctly?  What
>           exactly does "could be confused with" mean?
>         
>         
>         o  3.3
>         
>               In the filename of a YANG module, where it takes the form: module-
>               or-submodule-name ['@' revision-label] ( '.yang' / '.yin' )
>         
>           Should this section update 5.2 of RFC 7950?  I know that 5.2 just
>           says "SHOULD".  But existing tools implement this SHOULD, and they
>           need to be updated to handle this new convention.
>         
>           But I wonder if this a good idea.  It means that a tool that looks
>           for a module with a certain revision date cannot simply check the
>           filenames, but need to parse all available modules (wijust to find the 
>         
>         
>         
>         o  3.4
>         
>              leaf imperial-temperature {
>                type int64;
>                units "degrees Fahrenheit";
>                status deprecated {
>                  rev:status-description
>                    "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
>                     of their metric equivalents.  Use metric-temperature
>                     instead.";
>                }
>                description
>                  "Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
>              }
>         
>           I don't think rev:status-description is necessary / worth it.  This
>           can easily be written with the normal description statement instead:
>         
>              leaf imperial-temperature {
>                type int64;
>                units "degrees Fahrenheit";
>                status deprecated;
>                description
>                    "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
>                     of their metric equivalents.  Use metric-temperature
>                     instead.
>         
>                     Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
>              }
>         
>         
>         o  3.5
>         
>           The example modules should be legal YANG modules.  Use e.g. 
>           "urn:example:module" as namespace.
>         
>           Also, the modules are missing the last "}", which confuses the
>           "rfcstrip" tool.
>         
>         
>         o 4.1.1
>         
>             Alternatively, the first example could have used the revision label
>             "1.0.0" instead, which selects the same set of revisions/versions.
>         
>             import example-module {
>               rev:revision-or-derived 1.0.0;
>             }
>         
>           Shouldn't this be s/1.0.0/2.0.0/g ?
>         
>         
>         o  5
>         
>           I think the module name "ietf-yl-revisions" should be changed to
>           "ietf-yang-library-revisions".   "yl" is not a well-known acronym.
>         
>         
>         o  5.2.2
>         
>           Wouldn't it be better if the leaf "deprecated-nodes-implemented" and
>           "obsolete-nodes-absent" were of type "boolean" rather than type
>           "empty"?
>         
>         
>         o  7.1
>         
>           The text says:
>         
>             All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements for all
>             newly published YANG modules, and all newly published revisions of
>             existing YANG modules.  The revision-label MUST take the form of a
>             YANG semantic version number [I-D.verdt-netmod-yang-semver].
>         
>           I strongly disagree with this new rule.  IETF modules use a linear
>           history, so there are no reasons to use "modified semver".
>         
>           It is ok to use rev:nbc-changes if needed, though.
>         
>         
>         o 7.1.1
>         
>           There is a missing " in:
>         
>            4.  For status "obsolete", it is RECOMMENDED to keep the "status-
>                description" information, from when the node had status
>                "deprecated, which is still relevant.
>          HERE  -----------^
>         
>         
>         o  8
>         
>           s/CODE ENDS>/<CODE ENDS>/
>         
>         
>         o Both YANG modules
>         
>           All extensions should specify the grammar; i.e., in which statements
>           they can be present and which substatements they can have.
>         
>         
>         
>         /martin
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         netmod mailing list
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>         
>     
>     _______________________________________________
>     netmod mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>     
>