Re: [netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Fri, 20 March 2020 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB793A0E9D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=mvjs6Tz0; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=NwhH7PjA
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SK-y_xfT3tDm for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DF353A0E93 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7658; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1584738481; x=1585948081; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/eKr+jfnIwREV4FAs/3WGknSe2upHAowW8KOasK9Pqw=; b=mvjs6Tz0FGI8fywVWlddfmX51ZZGZTePL2B6mB32XHV5DCQHcU8w7lfH ejesCD9akJlX/2Tck2Xl/yH1SbFbXUV4jnLJHK1W4n+WOvisaHA5G5URg K/8Tbfjyag4E0pc+4x2MWxwED/95p6LxB2IxJ6Is5M2heK5Cr1h5kLa3C s=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ap2Zq7xyTokKYX27XCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5YhSN/u1j2VnOW4iTq+lJjebbqejBYSQB+t7A1RJKa5lQT1?= =?us-ascii?q?kAgMQSkRYnBZufE0T7KffsRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DBBQC1L3Ve/5BdJa1mHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgXuBVFAFbFggBAsqhBiDRQOKb06aLYFCgRADVAkBAQEMAQEYDQg?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAEBg39FAheCDSQ4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FVgyFZAIBAwEBEBERDAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BLAwPAgEIGgImAgICJQsVEAIEARIigwQBgksDLgEOogQCgTmIYnWBMoJ/AQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FgkWCYBiCDAMGgQ4qjC8agUE/gREnIIJNPoJkAQECGoEvGhchAoJXMoIsjXg?= =?us-ascii?q?BA4J3hhuZPQqCPIdYjyYdgkuUNoRUjwqBT4c2kmECBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkigVh?= =?us-ascii?q?wFTsqAYJBUBgNjh2Dc4UUhUF0EoEXjWkBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,285,1580774400"; d="scan'208";a="459418377"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Mar 2020 21:08:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 02KL8068012459 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:08:00 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:07:59 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:07:59 -0500
Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:07:59 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; =?utf-8?q?b=3Dh8EdmFgUMKH6WfgSsyXfZ72qiHiIQPeYq7vRZVK2bIP58z+34c7XAQ3VI84Wu?= =?utf-8?q?sz0p+wsPMPlecfA4Xnu1S/B5/+Z4RVOqzeQkgFyHKRFHsBNMxrvakiQamEPZ9euRz?= =?utf-8?q?wdbwEkCXLkcg3KVRpV7CCgzjiFEerAr2c9TYMk0gXPkLWyrtKvP3MqFGayCuB0tET?= =?utf-8?q?gJ02238y64c/rg0RuZ6OArdchVF3XIe0lBr8XNABszF0AGbAcNKXSfomt/sXymbU9?= =?utf-8?q?Pom/YQJz+7NBe64asiIlXTO11bpyiwRarJuqUHk000nGZQgZ6rQv2zjg+ET8t/LvT?= =?utf-8?q?z/VIq2Gkxz/omyliy9lpQ=3D=3D?=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; =?utf-8?q?h=3DFrom=3ADate=3ASubject=3AMessage-ID=3ACont?= =?utf-8?q?ent-Type=3AMIME-Version=3AX-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck=3B?= =?utf-8?q?bh=3D/eKr+jfnIwREV4FAs/3WGknSe2upHAowW8KOasK9Pqw=3D=3B_b=3DK+DLDJ?= =?utf-8?q?flTc5Jjs1gpc5WbHfCDRZYUP42kWuZPo4GVW+cu97SU7R8Nj4tNVKtbJJZcH9/BLR?= =?utf-8?q?zulznkPupeOej7Ln++z7WdqK5BanOlEdAVyduWaYKBEk920ZqGey5GbmsZpP6pYvn?= =?utf-8?q?0dv569Ya1Mf6Hq2ncreQnEF5kaz/hRfPSLSSRY+Acq0ucPw3EFByWHFjfYs2l0YrM?= =?utf-8?q?OzbKfHVZyedfbAVmFWf+rsVaYedsxBBCLHomeS6urGH3JPChY8L5HDXwJoG1cXU8e?= =?utf-8?q?jqo0sejeuX2/7i43mZ1uKjUyXhtb6qIVQm9+Ircgp7NSljHuA+Nhw9ohBaTN4XBM4?= =?utf-8?q?tOnbHawvb8w=3D=3D?=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; =?utf-8?q?h=3DFrom=3ADate=3ASubject=3AM?= =?utf-8?q?essage-ID=3AContent-Type=3AMIME-Version=3AX-MS-Exchange-SenderADC?= =?utf-8?q?heck=3B_bh=3D/eKr+jfnIwREV4FAs/3WGknSe2upHAowW8KOasK9Pqw=3D=3B_b?= =?utf-8?q?=3DNwhH7PjAs18Jj8mcsb1Dh/ixMluBZALAtbSFFjZMplNYnZEfb4pJI7wEQ2ybq5?= =?utf-8?q?aI6UYzAzW+xp96Alnl/ch7F9Z5FLcTljH9dgrzJUuFldTCGKtJwauwuE3zfBY1pH3?= =?utf-8?q?0dxJpZjwiFDFtnsZHaYDLZ3tO2vU1mNX7DDECprJk7zA=3D?=
Received: from DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:69::31) by DM6PR11MB3098.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:70::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2835.19; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:07:58 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91cb:6555:db9b:53fa]) by DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91cb:6555:db9b:53fa%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2835.017; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:07:58 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWFydGluIEJqw7Zya2x1bmQ=?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01
Thread-Index: AQHV9xKCAY8vmuDC6UCnDihoeZ3rzahRxg+A
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:07:57 +0000
Message-ID: <B8762AB5-C97E-445A-8B9B-393D3B0E019F@cisco.com>
References: <20200310.203027.522986329204385274.id@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <20200310.203027.522986329204385274.id@4668.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1003::38f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: cf3c1d6e-8174-4f73-ff98-08d7cd12c488
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3098:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: =?utf-8?q?=3CDM6PR11MB3098A8B0416ACD0EF574E641ABF?= =?utf-8?q?50=40DM6PR11MB3098=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273;
x-forefront-prvs: 03484C0ABF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; =?utf-8?q?SFS=3A=2810009020=29=284636?= =?utf-8?b?MDA5KSgxMzYwMDMpKDM2NjAwNCkoMzk4NjA0MDAwMDIpKDM0NjAwMikoMzc2?= =?utf-8?b?MDAyKSgzOTYwMDMpKDE5OTAwNCkoNjQ3NTYwMDgpKDg2MzYyMDAxKSgyOTA2?= =?utf-8?b?MDAyKSg2NTA2MDA3KSg4OTM2MDAyKSgxMTAxMzYwMDUpKDY2NTc0MDEyKSg0?= =?utf-8?q?78600001=29=2836756003=29=288676002=29=2833656002=29=2881166006?= =?utf-8?b?KSg4MTE1NjAxNCkoOTY2MDA1KSg2NjQ3NjAwNykoNjQ4NjAwMikoMTg2MDAzKSg2?= =?utf-8?q?6556008=29=2866446008=29=285660300002=29=2866946007=29=282616005?= =?utf-8?b?KSg5MTk1NjAxNykoMzE2MDAyKSg3MTIwMDQwMDAwMSkoNjUxMjAwNykoNzYx?= =?utf-8?q?16006=29=3B?= DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB3098; H:DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: =?utf-8?q?fHu0LOsftvrjcBH/UUOyUpodDSKXdhC?= =?utf-8?q?tNiLWP7agw5HFjcFuDkO4c90uJXGKhWm9hXCpXJK3FJmeKu1mFlBmV/xA5ab3ebuP?= =?utf-8?q?lAU/5ngPL6RqsiffhG7n/8v94YKw4P8t1GYW0VO6MM1TxBF5H+gEOxoegPJV5uC3g?= =?utf-8?q?AFM1RsdiCitERI59Qq2P7xkKmdjhztAn1MpFxGX1C4zDCaabrjNUMdzNn339vA6xH?= =?utf-8?q?0BJupzHZBmR6F+PmaI1S71YlBrN9t2czjgrXEWINu+MP/H3GohRn13Qn4MxzDyfGu?= =?utf-8?q?9vvsZkJTLRYVrLf4EwVn/gO7IhWJAp81d/QNqopk6OjP01E56ZmKYR29TnW33fLDA?= =?utf-8?q?UO+tsW5oVLwmso7Dec7zV5+Ww6P1/mB77bCNvTHNbOHGYxi0uBfuIXe2K/K5hIq64?= =?utf-8?q?tcb7ZErK62CEc+d/BRjfpjXlFwXtB9oKUCIId126Gw/Yz05JkUKUngWIOKhFxpqFU?= =?utf-8?q?TP8ISZQ/U2AJc0xiQJfjKCEKP4jxZgFP63BMPvpmdANobdMg=3D=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?q?WWNbE3OH5M2NxYPfGQpGj9um0Pf8lZ?= =?utf-8?q?Im6osetz1vDu8DevoRgK+h+KVUao9q4Wm3NFmZqnDb3rkubjzIK47orJdYLv48d/z?= =?utf-8?q?EN4nwPIyNvRW8aBtH6dyIkuq8HvqxyR9e5yD+UGHw5dIZDqny3P+Ojri03udDLIe9?= =?utf-8?q?qDmnRWW4PwY=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <145776F7896A1447B31C3E280FEA4084@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cf3c1d6e-8174-4f73-ff98-08d7cd12c488
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Mar 2020 21:07:58.5413 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: =?utf-8?q?SPO5jqY4dZgpUokmtnZ39?= =?utf-8?q?c0uvfA04dsU3M98dZHGo3f0gQVyOnyKe+Ce+TiXodMIARJa75eA2URE2IRSRYLlWw?= =?utf-8?q?=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3098
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.15, xch-rcd-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/A26iy4HELupLoEEJskB2xvbjQEQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:08:04 -0000

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