Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:24 AM Jürgen Schönwälder
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I wonder which problem we are solving with adding more little rules.
> Perhaps a future version of YANG will do away with prefixes but until
> this happens, I do not think we need to add more rules about how to
> choose prefixes. The original intend was that they are short to keep
> YANG snippets concise and easy to read.
>
>

This is the IETF Coding Conventions document, not the YANG specification.
Naming conventions are CLRs but often with some benefits.

What problems?

1) If there are multiple modules used in imports then the reader must be
able to
easily tell the prefixes apart.  If prefixes are too short and not
meaningful, this task
gets more difficult.  I find myself constantly going back to the imports to
make sure
I am matching the prefix to the correct module.

2) If there are complex XPath expressions then prefixes that are too long
make the
expression unreadable, especially as it is chopped into "string" +
"string"  format
to fit into 72 character lines. If prefixes are too short then back to
problem (1).

3)  It is becoming more common to have vendor modules import modules from
multiple SDOs.
Prefix naming conventions are already the BCP everywhere but the IETF.

Is it too late to start for IETF? There are many modules already with no
naming consistency,
so this would only affect new modules. There will never be consistent
naming of prefixes
so it may not be worth the change now.



/js
>


Andy


>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 01:02:58PM +0000, [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > (changing the subject to ease tracking this)
> >
> > The thread I was referring is:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/6VkSrroaxwXHSI19Jj0j-tbFCjA/
> >
> > I do personally think that it is a good guidance to prefix IETF modules
> with “ietf-“ and IANA-maintained ones with “iana-‘. This is consistent with
> the practice we followed recently for iana-maintained modules.
> >
> > If we recommend this prefix pattern, I’m afraid that we need to revisit
> the text about short prefixes, e.g.,
> >
> > OLD:
> >    Prefix values SHOULD be short but are also likely to be unique.
> >    Prefix values SHOULD NOT conflict with known modules that have been
> >    previously published.
> >
> > NEW:
> >    Prefix values SHOULD be prefixed with “ietf-“ for IETF modules and
> >    “iana-“ for IANA-maintained modules. Prefix values SHOULD NOT be
> >    too long and SHOULD NOT conflict with known modules that have been
> >    previously published.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > De : Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
> > Envoyé : jeudi 14 mars 2024 22:53
> > À : Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
> > Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> > Objet : Re: [netmod] IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I cannot find this email wrt/ short prefixes
> >
> >
> >   *   (short/uniqueness of prefixes
> >
> > Other SDOs are using a prefix in their prefixes (e.g. openconfig).
> > It is common for servers to have both "if:interfaces" and
> "oc-if:interfaces" subtrees.
> >
> > It might be a good idea to have a guideline that all IETF YANG modules
> SHOULD
> > use the "ietf-" string in the module prefix.  This should reduce the
> chance of name collisions
> > between SDOs and vendors, and helps identify the module as an IETF
> module.
> >
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:51 AM Mahesh Jethanandani <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > Hi Med,
> >
> > Thanks for driving this effort on updating RFC 8407.
> >
> > One additional change coming your way, is to address the question of how
> IANA is supposed to handle updates to IANA YANG modules. The YANG doctors
> are currently debating those changes. Once agreed, we will bring that
> discussion here, and will need to update rfc8407bis to provide guidance to
> authors who update an IANA module. Stay tuned.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2024, at 5:00 AM, [e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >   *   A candidate -10 is ready to address 3 comments from Jan:
> >
> >      *   Long trees
> >      *   Updated security template
> >      *   Minor tweaks to Section 3.8
> >      *   The changes circulated on the list can be seen here: Compare
> Editor's Copy to Datatracker<
> https://boucadair.github.io/rfc8407bis/#go.draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.diff
> >
> >
> >   *   Jan raised two other comments (short/uniqueness of prefixes + how
> to handle “not set”) but no changes were made per the feedback received on
> the list.
> >   *   Next steps:
> >
> >      *   Submit -10 right after IETF#119
> >      *   WGLC
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> >
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> >
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> >
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
> ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> >
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> >
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> >
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> >
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> >
> > Mahesh Jethanandani
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
> ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
> --
> Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>