Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

["Ivory, William" <[e-mail]>]

Apologies if this has already been suggested and deemed unworkable, but if you have access to all previous version labels for a branch then you can add 'M' only to the versions that are NBC with the previous version, and subsequent versions could drop the M until the next NBC change, ie:

1.0.0 -> 1.0.1 -> 1.0.2 > 1.0.3M -> 1.0.4 -> 1.0.5M ...

Here 1.04 is BC with 1.03 but not 1.0.0 - 1.0.2; 1.0.5 is NBC with 1.0.4 and previous versions etc.

The revision statements contain the revision-labels so you should have all the previous revision-labels present in the file, and you have all the data you need. Now you don't have the problem of the branch being poisoned as soon as the first M is added.

William

On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 22:11 +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:

On 2020-03-30, 5:51 PM, "Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


    "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    > > But it is not true.  What happened between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M?

    >

    > It tells you there is an NBC change between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M.



    No.  As you note below it says that all bets are off.  The change

    between these two could be a spelling error fix.  Hence, Reshad's

    statement that "The revision label allows a user to easily figure out

    whether 2 revisions are (N)BC." is not correct.

You are correct that once a branch is poisoned with an 'M', the information provided is not as rich.

Even though you don't know whether 1.0.3M is BC/NBC with 1.0.2M, you still know that

- 1.0.2M is NBC with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0

- 1.0.3M is NBC with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0

- 1.0.1 is BC with 1.0.0


Still useful IMO.


Regards,

Reshad.



    > The M gives an indication that a branch has been "poisoned" by an

    > NBC change and that all bets are off from that point onwards in that

    > branch.





    /martin





    >

    > > -----Original Message-----

    > > From: netmod <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund

    > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:40 PM

    > > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    > > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    > > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label

    > > statements

    > >

    > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    > > >

    > > > On 2020-03-30, 2:20 PM, "Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    > > >

    > > >     "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    > > >     > On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    > > >     >

    > > >     >     "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    > > >     >     > Hi,

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_netmod-2Dwg_yang-2Dver-2Ddt_issues_45&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=ffH268c0xOd0DSFLQzZ2JHAmCHjVzPJVJtGPNxiiJcs&s=nyxzbv7ZWMgcXuMEW8MqjeT3oVxla6qFiF96M8SaMUY&e=

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     >         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.

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     > We believe some IETF models may not follow linear history, this was

    > > >     >     > brought up (I think) for IDR. Modified semver allows for non-linear

    > > >     >     > history and also doesn't preclude linear history. So even if we end up

    > > >     >     > having no IETF modules using branching, modified semver still works.

    > > >     >

    > > >     >     With the clarifiactions and updates in

    > > >     >     draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning, non-linear versioning

    > > >     >     works without modified semver.  So there is no technical reason to use

    > > >     >     modified semver in IETF modules.

    > > >     >

    > > >     > So are you proposing we use some other revision-label scheme (e.g.

    > > semver 2.0.0) for IETF modules?

    > > >     >

    > > >     > Or that IETF modules shouldn't use revision-labels?

    > > >

    > > >     That IETF shouldn't use revision labels.

    > > >

    > > > The revision label allows a user to easily figure out whether 2

    > > > revisions are (N)BC.

    > >

    > > I think you meant "modified semver as revision label allows ..."

    > >

    > > But it is not true.  What happened between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M?

    > >

    > >

    > > /martin

    > >

    > >

    > > > Without the label, you always have to use tooling.

    > > >

    > > > Regards,

    > > > Reshad.

    > > >

    > > >     I am all for using rev:nbc-changes or rev:editorial-changes (which I

    > > >     think should be added) in IETF modules.

    > > >

    > > >

    > > >     /martin

    > > >

    > > >

    > > >     >

    > > >     > Or do you have something else in mind?

    > > >     >

    > > >     > Regards,

    > > >     > Reshad.

    > > >     >

    > > >     >     I can reluctantly accept that modified smever is published as

    > > >     >     Experimental.  But that doesn't mean that IETF modules should use it.

    > > >     >

    > > >     >

    > > >     >     /martin

    > > >     >

    > > >     >

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     > Regards,

    > > >     >     > Reshad.

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     > On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman

    > > (rrahman)"

    > > >     >     > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of

    > > >     >     > rrahman=[e-mail]<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_netmod-2Dwg_yang-2Dver-2D&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=ffH268c0xOd0DSFLQzZ2JHAmCHjVzPJVJtGPNxiiJcs&s=HjVuj69fVsCLulvyNUajxCbtSKPAVkUZVJNK8s-f-Ho&e=

    > > 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]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    > > >     >     >         https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=ffH268c0xOd0DSFLQzZ2JHAmCHjVzPJVJtGPNxiiJcs&s=z5LiDOlko48vuqlIgA0Gm7dcsxmHOtwfod6wC46lRU0&e=

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     >     _______________________________________________

    > > >     >     >     netmod mailing list

    > > >     >     >     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    > > >     >     >     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=ffH268c0xOd0DSFLQzZ2JHAmCHjVzPJVJtGPNxiiJcs&s=z5LiDOlko48vuqlIgA0Gm7dcsxmHOtwfod6wC46lRU0&e=

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >     >

    > > >     >

    > > >     >

    > > >

    > > >

    > > _______________________________________________

    > > netmod mailing list

    > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=ffH268c0xOd0DSFLQzZ2JHAmCHjVzPJVJtGPNxiiJcs&s=z5LiDOlko48vuqlIgA0Gm7dcsxmHOtwfod6wC46lRU0&e=




_______________________________________________

netmod mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=ffH268c0xOd0DSFLQzZ2JHAmCHjVzPJVJtGPNxiiJcs&s=z5LiDOlko48vuqlIgA0Gm7dcsxmHOtwfod6wC46lRU0&e=