Re: [netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 15/01/2016 15:20, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 15:49, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 15:10, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 12:49, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
>>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:39:16PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this solve any practical problem? Modules are imported based on
>>>>>> the module name and revision. On the other hand, it does create new
>>>>>> problems:
>>>>>> namespace URIs and their mappings to prefixes may be spread in many
>>>>>> places in the code, and these would have to be manually edited after
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> I-D -> RFC transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would IMO be much better to use revision numbers rather than dates,
>>>>>> and adopt a convention, e.g., that modules in the I-D stage have
>>>>>> revisions 0.x that get bumped with each new revision of the I-D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lada, this is not how our current YANG 1.0 versioning and revision
>>>>> rules work and we are not going to change them in YANG 1.1 either.
>>>>> The rules we have do make a distinction between published modules and
>>>>> modules that are unpublished.
>>>>>
>>>> I am not proposing it. The problem I'd like to get solved is proper
>>>> module revisioning already at the I-D stage so that implementations be able
>>>> to distinguish one revision from another. Appending DRAFT to the namespace
>>>> URI doesn't help anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Changing the module name constantly does not help.
>>>> It would be better to just keep using revision dates.
>>>>
>>> Some I-Ds don't do even that, for example acl-model uses the same
>>> revision date in subsequent I-D revisions. I checked that this actually
>>> violates a MUST in RFC 6087.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the YANG module does not change from one I-D to the next,
>>> then the revision date does not need to change.
>>>
>> 6087(bis) says:
>>
>>     It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within
>>     unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date
>>     MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-
>>     posted.
>>
>> I think it is a good idea.
>>
> It also think that it is a good idea.
>
> Since an ID is effectively superseded by any new versions, I think that it
> is useful if a module defined in an ID has a revision date that matches the
> published ID, and also a reference back to the ID version that defines it.
> At least if someone ends up implementing that module they can check its
> provenance.  Both of these properties would also be verifiable by idnits.
>
>
this seems like a good idea.


Rob
>
>
Andy