Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
Sent: 22 March 2022 07:11

So we have the following options:

a) Leave revision-date to be defined in ietf-yang-revisions.

b) Define revision-date in ietf-yang-types.

c) Define a date-no-zone type (derived from the date type) which does
   not have the optional time zone offset.

<tp>

Yes, I like c) for its simplicity and its adequacy

Tom Petch


I am leaning towards option c), having a generic type for a date
without a time zone is the most general type we can provide. If
additional specific revision date semantics are necessary, they can be
provided in ietf-yang-revisions. (Looking at the definition of the
type revision-identifier in RFC 8525, this is really date-no-zone.)

/js

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:42:31AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 6:01 AM Jürgen Schönwälder <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:21:01PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:34 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > 1) If you provided WGLC comments on this draft, please review the -12
> > diff
> > > > <
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-12.txt> to
> > > > ensure that the updates made are good.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Juergen notes below that he also removed the "revision-identifier"
> > > > typedef, as it is better
> > > > defined in the YANG versioning module.  Any objections?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sorry for the late comment.
> > > I think Juergen listed one option as "rename to revision-date and leave
> > it
> > > in this module".
> > > I support this option.
> > >
> > > There is no chance that the revision date format will be changing any
> > time
> > > soon.
> > > This is useful for general applications because revision date is widely
> > > used.
> > >
> >
> > The ietf-yang-library module (RFC 8525) currently uses its own
> > definition of revision-identifier. While this module could adopt a
> > common definition, the value of such a change is minor.
> >
> > The question where we place the definition of revision-date is likely
> > a matter of which role we expect the versioning work to play in the
> > future. I am relatively neutral on the placement.
> >
> >
> Not that important I guess.
> One would think the "date" typedef already in the draft would be useful,
> but it isn't, and therefore not used.
> There is no typedef for the pattern YYYY-MM-DD.
>
> /js
> >
>
> Andy
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Jürgen Schönwälder              Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >

--
Jürgen Schönwälder              Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod