Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/output can be reordered
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Tue, 31 March 2020 11:52 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 0272A3A1924 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.801
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=voP2HDsU; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=QJdgnylB
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 4cD3OXsqUy8y for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31CF43A1925 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778785C0587; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:52:06 -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= NuIu4O6ynn3vq2d6eLQcMfIPaU+gDWtwqiTNB6YTANk=; b=voP2HDsUpdSpblvV k8JK+5PrTpPixGoGWFiF5j1zWEbMIERqdyqBWK/kREL2Rei9SpBEjwTFC63+/VsJ fgCnZBV6ZWrXnRqZLBYpTUBOp/B3Mv1e3k18YaPr9tFRgrf5yeCdCjGViy8YQYBB ojp/tpJpYwc/5Hm+CcblSFnmijD3M/QvuNJJF009zrO1lLkFLCZnwtsGlTwq9Q+O 0caXfw/T2UF3GCIjaTP9ovSAbzu1CFyS9bQT+QdWHkg4E/KJr8WcaqLe/klzqkFy JD8nTIxayU4khaRXRdtxGD64fahSD7ltTC9mtjsDPGDF6wBzIuHQUteu3F+l2UEz XA24BA==
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=NuIu4O6ynn3vq2d6eLQcMfIPaU+gDWtwqiTNB6YTA Nk=; b=QJdgnylB+O0uYT839Ngc5X3tsJAN83iH4UotFpG89om73pEzKW2Ts+Tq0 DJJnD9Rp0naPaOKCQJXo6i0fg2dBUw70iPW7adg/yGX+/yvIXGeu7XkkzLxJjz29 JwQaGDg3E6lVuMqkKD/WiARTyeR6torMH1REmvnLyummwkK7SssPZp0vMzjuq+q+ DidbIJCO3jqAw2Pxeqf6K34W+5LNCZ0YjKCkA5zZMeK4mCjf5QVwJqi+Cayon7Y6 srvUabEK7fGFBbi6dh9z7vlqUgvZbCMB0IP10DRvrZ33egIkacVuSVxF+lV3My2Y FDyB2yHuk8ANLCyznwbrxFCuF8e+w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:5S6DXho9Oh52yPjrxDIpS1H8FeH6WlFV_oV8KFRpw4myosLnvlmrdQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddtgdduudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesthgsre dtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgv thhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhivghtfh drohhrghenucfkphepudehkedrudejgedrgedrgeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:5i6DXqgVCFdmG7Y91a-KAp27tbEkwaatmjRbb3zx4LtXhnpa0MPjIQ> <xmx:5i6DXn667KHU5OZAyYkI7X-Debty_63muqH5m6zRnFlE5-0a1WVAwg> <xmx:5i6DXg3F6XYHE6gMk58QoM_y67LerBSAkbNCOwLXYneDdt88_FiHzg> <xmx:5i6DXj8uUdvAafFXuKGBsKaAPw-gvWTQUjpKptJQwxX30IQmj6RtkQ>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 63860306CB52; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:52:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:52:03 +0200
Message-Id: <20200331.135203.2237955857731629624.id@4668.se>
To: rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: rrahman@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4366BF797649EFE9AFBC4FC0B5C80@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <809C7D15-95DD-49CF-975A-B55F08D8C782@cisco.com> <20200328.094306.1883371784477662660.id@4668.se> <MN2PR11MB4366BF797649EFE9AFBC4FC0B5C80@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/EC-dquf2IZxx595BuTGUCZ374iM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/output can be reordered
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 11:52:09 -0000
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: > [As an individual contributor] > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund > > Sent: 28 March 2020 08:43 > > To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/output can be > > reordered > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/47 > > > > > > 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"). > > > > > > > > > Sounds good. JTBC, by descendent you're referring to data nodes > > > (children, grandchildren etc) and not to statements like type and > > > description? > > > > Yes I mean descendant nodes. > > > > > > > Also, could you refresh our memory why the decision was made to > > > preserve order of input/output data nodes? > > > > This is b/c this order is preserved on-the-wire for some encodings > > (like > > XML). > [RW] > > This is slightly on a tangent, but RFC 7950 allows modules to augment > RPC/Action input/output parameters. I'm not aware of any defined > order that augmentations are required to be processed in. RFC 7950, 7.17.2: When a node is augmented, the augmenting child nodes are encoded as subelements to the augmented node, in any order. > Hence it > seems to me that the order that the client expects and server uses > could end up being different if there are multiple augmentation to RPC > input/output parameters. Correct. This is something implementations must be able to handle. /martin > > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > > > /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 mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
- [netmod] No descendent statements to input/output… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/ou… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/ou… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/ou… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] No descendent statements to input/ou… tom petch