[netmod] bool v/s empty for new leafs deprecated-nodes and obsolete-nodes (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

Hi,

https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/52

        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"?

The bool v/s empty philosophical battle. I'm ok with boolean, I don't know if others have strong opinions on this.
If we go with boolean, if the leaf nodes are absent then the behaviour would be unspecified.

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mbj+ietf@4668.se> 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
        netmod@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod