Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Sat, 28 March 2020 08:41 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 6570E3A053E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 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, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.999, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=0ls03prZ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=TT/piykm
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 0CJvKrnoB7-z for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B19EC3A0418 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1955C02A8; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 04:41:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 28 Mar 2020 04:41:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh= PNlJ01GIhvBbBuIn50vEuBmCP3pzSIfC0W39J1v2qoE=; b=0ls03prZCHIr1BAa MzfiE49a+OYwt5pE7BCscaQKNwQAGUmP3WElJELhEFxX71/PSksIif4B/X2niDnd kO1eyDnIhCrE0A1dKeHT91H5cyjrz6gRv/TiyYeI5i6X8cLoX9+rg25HLzbCkh6L avviKrG6kxwmnsbGoriZ6DqoWPMkgmXrn/0N+MiquekFeWoCPtub3ESmmXAyNkPK prWameR37ECJriWwqjZNxB6rl/0M0RuUZ6Hop+yshk+8481bTm5OrIyiULk6cqt8 SOxEfqDT2MKktLatWNP9BRnAGLVYYr+CErERQeS0oAHLhPuEWd7nPMrXKKm0OCmM NUyeVA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=PNlJ01GIhvBbBuIn50vEuBmCP3pzSIfC0W39J1v2q oE=; b=TT/piykmivX85SpjFHGpMcbilWTJ/+wOIkAsuJn99Zpey3FZVot7g5kJS r4ox8XUZgoorcB43vNS5baXPhTwwg3N7DVT3wBkRe/s0r6fHZrMZIhog3ivW3KiJ KGYiVnhvHazVAlHGw1v2eK4j1cbhylY+JuKCROCuZHzGgYt5KfR/xanJ8bDCVSKH HC7xvdQC7O36+qwWTQV+5T5YT0sx8IZluwfzNuC92H8R7YJh88ModBnQs2GuP+um jRbSB+d0Xq903Yx5szZ/SijjEgOeLa1zaAvncovgSiuNnnOaFricji2Hm9no1m4t OWuljHomeHVFFY3xI3O6K1deCGx/A==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:tA1_XrIFttafTLKYvPxqvGQZBEjaIDHtzb5rsdLRFOBQrstYhsjcqA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeitddguddukecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesth gsredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdo ihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhivg htfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudehhedrgedruddtfedruddvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihii vgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrsh gv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:tA1_XjZO2zHrv8aBlPCuZtS4-vo8yII3McUCV-YNSPEtHrMIye0NrA> <xmx:tA1_Xuu9F_J9vfsTgmjf_P7Jy3vxMiiEGXCLi19HKRmzg-8KkmvV8w> <xmx:tA1_XosIYFZ6ARytFKUoge_pV0mkojdaJ12YyAR39uSV9o6dRy8cYA> <xmx:tQ1_XsVnX_1izHhxlG3kS4HbQvkCnKyjjW1959IiRMA0NdQlqsYprg>
Received: from localhost (unknown [155.4.103.12]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0D13E306C676; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 04:41:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:41:21 +0100
Message-Id: <20200328.094121.1160081114435152145.id@4668.se>
To: rrahman@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <75CFDBD9-143C-407A-B7C3-26CEC51E229C@cisco.com>
References: <75CFDBD9-143C-407A-B7C3-26CEC51E229C@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/BM8Le4g8MRpW39lWfVnSm_4QtTE>
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: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:41:28 -0000
"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <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. 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 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 > >
- [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revis… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Ivory, William
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)