[netmod] YANG filenames in module versioning

(changing subject for a dedicated thread on the filename)

What the draft was mainly trying to achieve (IMO) wrt filename was to have a standard format/separator (#) when using a revision-label.

i.e. *if* anyone is to use a revision-label, then it should be done with <module-name>#<revision-label>.yang.

(and some users will indeed like to manage module versions using revision labels instead of dates – probably most over the long term)

I’m not sure that {date, label} is a required tuple to identify a version of a module. I see the “keys” more as {module-name, label} OR {module-name,date}.
(where {module-name, label} could theoretically allow multiple revisions in a single day, although for now we haven’t changed the 7950 requirement that every module has a unique date)

Jason

From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 8:29 PM
To: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" drafts

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:10 AM Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk<mailto:nite@hq.sk>> wrote:
On 09/05/2023 00.49, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Dear NETMOD WG,
>
> This message begins a joint two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-11 and draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-09
>   ending on Monday, May 22nd.  Neither draft has IPR declared.  Here are the direct links to the HTML version for these drafts:
>
>     - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-11
>     - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-09
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.

Hello, I have reviewed the module-versioning draft and overall it looks
fine (well, aside from the incoming pain :), but we'll cope with that in
due time).

One concern I have is with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-09#name-file-names,
which changes file naming.

Previously the canonical file name included revision -- and now that
information is lost. While I understand the desire for descriptive
names, which are a boon for humans, the until the entire ecosystem
adopts labels, this change is either-or -- and hence tools have to pick
which metadata is more important: label or revision.

Would it be possible to define a format which contains *both* the label
and revision, so as not to pick favorites?

This is an example of an important detail that could be solved differently
if a new YANG language version was used.  In YANG 1.1 the revision-date is optional.
In YANG 1.2, both the revision-date and label could be mandatory.

It is common practice to release YANG changes in multiple release trains
on the same day.  So the {date, label} is the unique identifier for the YANG file,
not some combination of optional parts.  IMO the file name you suggest should
be the mandatory-to-implement canonical file name format for YANG 1.2.

[>>JTS:] …snipped out the comments on doing this work in YANG 1.0/1.1 vs another version of YANG…

Thanks,
Robert

Andy

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