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

"Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jason.sterne@nokia.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 968153A24F7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com
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 NioRTco3R926 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11on2137.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.236.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79393A24FF for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=kVY0SPkOMFwfub6vil13TzBJiMIuGbZYkMGLJWPiebZvfe62GqIsJhi+cbIjJBd3gp0KjskCaWuYVM2OP2CKbNJylu+ScviSPc4ApZ38o6y9cHO5wMlqA6iATH0D84HHgOh1IOs5T4HXijGVuR8xNo+sA3c6N2kjfSld7kv9/bS4nCUiAy8EmfWSQWIG+Wu3XnisZrTyGDBaEYF/bzvbF1KOg5sBtbzOzyzcxa6MnsXhkDdMdJQuqrbwngvMVSCsIMExug03JbeHjVSx2cvitdS72VFd8gviSngfb5w3CSLlGgLgFaN3Asr4wjt3ZQbcix32DrjkaGkzXDJ0oXyKpg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=KkYxp04dzlB3rKB9AMbdw+xulC2hU1G9/Gz9J5rTKAM=; b=ETYMJzyyXGMTmkknSP0HFgL/4n2mAbe0MRMCGjGUWGczIX6ceWzxwUrtgCYMPtSKTv3dmOo9c6ZaAJWnPut6sr9Fo7sjbXjaZRMNuPhnXq1Ph9EzjINXb4kOfk4kqfsqnzVK28wzVNA0ykJvFwsMszDQ0Tm+5nb+h2R8y6HY4a65UNsZpt2SkKfJ8pDtngZ+mHkYk9V5f6qGq6WBn+oUrvqLQJCL7MLa6iMSl+dFZ60w3DW05/RXQ4FNES95aMpV/WhKYPpqkKtp/EKcp9kJmNYCzNAd7TMj66a4AiVI4AWDcplfBVaFcVvksuRHSnYiOwdnp6askmf2xii1dACS6g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=KkYxp04dzlB3rKB9AMbdw+xulC2hU1G9/Gz9J5rTKAM=; b=K+JD/wOJ+IfDiSi0I0lzWDbBjOwzf1utdXjqtIanAhdudxxP4qiGMWNYKlNnLdN1kUHGU5vSYb5cdk8sithPNP+UnmC9xV4CeLr3oekqzOJB30F20H7Ak/a9xwJgMhhr35deO6iZuHN+QlyKl/qfNxWa1ZCPsufHdaniJVFBAkc=
Received: from DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:ca::21) by DM5PR08MB2841.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:144::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.20; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:18:59 +0000
Received: from DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c00d:56c3:675e:ec63]) by DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c00d:56c3:675e:ec63%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:18:59 +0000
From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: =?utf-8?B?TWFydGluIEJqw7Zya2x1bmQ=?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
Thread-Index: AQHWBtNsM0hFMwGcFk22QjMBKcTjZ6hhqAFwgAAE4QCAAACBsIAABmUAgAE+bNA=
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:18:59 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR08MB26334483676EC3875074A2189BC80@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <047FB87D-37B2-41F4-86D2-B9A03050B4EB@cisco.com> <20200330.223957.1196399215343087647.id@4668.se> <DM5PR08MB2633E6B1CA925B2D6E4B3AAE9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20200330.235046.60166687757387667.id@4668.se> <DM5PR08MB26331E2259B8FAE739902CAD9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHSU4cffoW9Wz-UWqdvOQzp7t9LJUC_B5QS+fFBmXBtuXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSU4cffoW9Wz-UWqdvOQzp7t9LJUC_B5QS+fFBmXBtuXw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jason.sterne@nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [65.110.221.64]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d64cb6fb-338b-4192-03bd-08d7d59799d6
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR08MB2841:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR08MB2841A642603C5BF2CF9EA0B59BC80@DM5PR08MB2841.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7219;
x-forefront-prvs: 0359162B6D
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(366004)(55016002)(86362001)(76116006)(7696005)(186003)(66556008)(8676002)(81166006)(6506007)(4326008)(66446008)(26005)(66476007)(966005)(53546011)(9686003)(54906003)(8936002)(2906002)(52536014)(64756008)(81156014)(5660300002)(33656002)(6916009)(71200400001)(316002)(66946007)(478600001)(66574012)(30864003)(9326002)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: ScbOA7NNWRGPAzjQnVHlgXD3pEHweQpiICebOyLXt4I3QNs+RAgD0V5iJtb2Onu5peXdFkGEdF9o2tNoLpmDHAkUJ/aJBQDcD0YknTJp3qcHRbDKzJvROVfR+DjdOdd3dX4Q6JGuc4QOYN+fD8dW2w==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR08MB26334483676EC3875074A2189BC80DM5PR08MB2633namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d64cb6fb-338b-4192-03bd-08d7d59799d6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Mar 2020 17:18:59.2722 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: YyqE9XMLh7u/HsD6SA2tDwSRZK4518NVXyfd/wyHTH8JY7EFDUmFMmXnpZqrF6oL+mcrntUIRn/AsFiNSPVNEw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR08MB2841
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/D1L4_1TQG7MyK1jK-N_zREUD5LE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:19:07 -0000

Hi Andy,

I wasn't so much worried about people filling in the revision statements as they go along. But after a while (especially for vendor models) the list of revision statements could get very large and there may be a desire to remove some of them, or somehow "compress" the information for the 2nd half of the statements, etc.

One primary value of the yang semver is a quick easy way to see if two arbitrary versions are BC, NBC (or in the case of M, "possibly NBC, you'd better check"). It doesn't require keeping a long history to have a "cumulative" indication.

Jason

From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 6:15 PM
To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
Cc: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>se>; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements



On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:57 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com<mailto:jason.sterne@nokia.com>> wrote:
Please see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se<mailto:mbj%2Bietf@4668.se>>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:51 PM
> To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com<mailto:jason.sterne@nokia.com>>
> Cc: rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label
> statements
>
> "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com<mailto:jason.sterne@nokia.com>> 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.

[>>JTS: ] You are correct and I made a mistake in my reply (looked too quickly). The M gives you one chance to indicate a NBC change in a branch. After that you no longer know (i.e. no worse than no revision label at all).
it is a compromise that allows:
- knowledge about the nature of changes on a branch that hasn't been poisoned yet
- one chance to alert users that an NBC change was made on a branch
That is useful enough to have it IMO.

Don't agree.
Also find the argument that the revision history will be incomplete not convincing.
If a developer knows enough to add the M then they can know enough to
fill in the revision-stmt correctly.

>
> > 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

 Andy

>
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:40 PM
> > > To: rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>
> > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label
> > > statements
> > >
> > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2020-03-30, 2:20 PM, "Martin Björklund" <mbj+ietf@4668.se<mailto:mbj%2Bietf@4668.se>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> wrote:
> > > >     > On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" <mbj+ietf@4668.se<mailto:mbj%2Bietf@4668.se>>
> wrote:
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> wrote:
> > > >     >     > Hi,
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/45
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >         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)"
> > > >     >     > <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
> > > >     >     > rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> > > >     >     >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >     _______________________________________________
> > > >     >     >     netmod mailing list
> > > >     >     >     netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> > > >     >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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