[netmod] Revision label in filename (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)
"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Fri, 27 March 2020 21:43 UTC
Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 915983A0C9C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=euz7cZvJ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=SjDfK1zK
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 hdk5RmG01uxA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5965C3A0E51 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10642; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585345359; x=1586554959; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=e1JajzD+Zgx+IPi5Y1kOShlIhl7Q9bUa5ozrgbdeEto=; b=euz7cZvJGKcud1xN1Fz9EjMyyzr7oagrMyDCRLDho9ad6q5Rsc5rrZJ5 A90GNxggGo8NWy7WqBYF3bWEhVKxHQ8IAs5DFa83YgiT562C+Pxvg7lGY qxQyIYA7U0xN6wa7q7toHqYAk3+e84dzXgSFp9nwEWiZq7zDXCMrN/3wO 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:712g4R3s5HLpy/UTsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKHt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQE1fyLPvjaQQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ATBwDGcn5e/5RdJa1mHAEBAQEBBwEBEQEEBAEBgXuBVFAFbFggBAsqCoQQg0UDimlOmjCBQoEQA1QKAQEBDAEBGA0IAgQBAYN/RRmCGiQ4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FVgyFcwUBEBERDAEBLAwRASICJgIEJQsVEgQBEiKDBAGCSwMuAQ6iGQKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWFJhiCDAMGgQ4qjDEagUE/gREnIIJNPoJnAQECGoEvMSECglgyggoijX0BA4J3hh2ZTAqCPASHW48tHYJMlEaEV48UgVCHQpJoAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpIiqBLnAVOyoBgkFQGA2OHTiDO4UUhUF0AhCBF4xhAYEPAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,313,1580774400"; d="scan'208";a="454184536"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Mar 2020 21:42:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 02RLgc0j027983 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Mar 2020 21:42:38 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:42:38 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:42:37 -0500
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:42:37 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JkFenhL+XmVoseBv2XIAGqQWFiyYDVlXcu/Nx1Xwzx4DwSTomC/+ifdjcarHiD6yAM5Y9QNRu2uiSU3T0QzIIgOyGdVgTwHHHSsxaz4vEnJzGLwajE3wXjrDe7KsyWycbyx9+xXG1tjkORRs+Gnz83WHTleZQse5QyEA2MSHfdz+n+p3PbMC0px7ER40A3NBBKdvpAliy53xphSIQ93Z0Vvq7J7LnBNcjCKm9j4xFPfLbPks5o5HXYM22c3nWLabATsIYMJO6EqNGvjW1usV6gfUqta8xdAdVrA06qz+Funzb0YMdGQEfaaTdquzyXDBPKdH7Dm7UowoeatV983LkQ==
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=e1JajzD+Zgx+IPi5Y1kOShlIhl7Q9bUa5ozrgbdeEto=; b=RmavsGOFnObWrbjp5gS1Z5VDgy869+8bCImc3bRofVmlPADF8HDa7YHZYlcJvAqO3pm9zrSFnZ91AxYMJoPPtOH0lmFL8Tb34Cio6Mv4Va0Zdex6bCgugN5yUEcCaENfadl9KpUYPYBvLGV5BKq3L0URHBRpxlLBA7vmNpYS2Sp9hIo84fmIJ3wqlMH61WBMfcuzgGe2pEQK7So8tfj8ZRRzKsUf7NCkcVe/oTByZm0+zCdr86BZY9mxTgvd0EIrlk1Ik6XaPVrxMjddsKNGzqxUrsnYaH9KsipP2Ot02Eyn3S5nA6VuU5uQr0V9odjolm1K+Y9J9uEXCHT2VVWgVQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e1JajzD+Zgx+IPi5Y1kOShlIhl7Q9bUa5ozrgbdeEto=; b=SjDfK1zK1+OJUm5+niKbNWhxS3IYQqDnsBPXrtLBxdutkDTg6qrdySWXy55DmmI1vbtzY3ETpKWfrwLfiXD3ZZ8HR5BqEQKVaPkCV8K4aZcFVyKYynfrR8deG42CKjx4OukyGoF+oDUoufKpeevWvPkB6SWJCwR65CsD7xTglsc=
Received: from DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:69::31) by DM6PR11MB3418.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:6e::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.19; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 21:42:36 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91cb:6555:db9b:53fa]) by DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91cb:6555:db9b:53fa%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 21:42:36 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Revision label in filename (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)
Thread-Index: AQHWBIChfPOJTZFKlEa+rfuKuRfRBQ==
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 21:42:36 +0000
Message-ID: <38961CAB-458F-409F-AD7B-51C825EB33DD@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [70.31.50.95]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1c87b014-1376-4817-65d0-08d7d297c426
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3418:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB3418061EE514F348992D68A5ABCC0@DM6PR11MB3418.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 0355F3A3AE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(26005)(5660300002)(6486002)(110136005)(966005)(71200400001)(2616005)(66574012)(53546011)(33656002)(6512007)(2906002)(6506007)(86362001)(81156014)(66946007)(91956017)(8676002)(81166006)(76116006)(66476007)(64756008)(66556008)(8936002)(316002)(478600001)(186003)(36756003)(66446008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB3418; H:DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.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: hy3BrLJeK76LAYZxIuuAaghOIxeRIInTTOG8hNNrulMtt3tYxHtZIHjikNVCjhP/+LC+38/v0faulZdFHDJ+6n2+pr+EZR79tBdaPxezuLbn0HYMTpMoIUbi0R/xkaSVTigeA9TpY4oQkMRNWP7z2g==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CFAC18DE37E03F4A947E0FDE29DE3049@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1c87b014-1376-4817-65d0-08d7d297c426
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Mar 2020 21:42:36.7880 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: kZkKiw3iTxar0RWOpxR6xu3cBoRovywmwdKgp2tSSYgdtycHYXxnpomNlfwIqGJFzFLsU1ax2dKy1V3JdLdUNw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3418
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/HqC-m5hGuyOtciPrBw-C3JrtOsM>
Subject: [netmod] Revision label in filename (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 21:43:01 -0000
Hi, https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/50 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 We agree that there is an impact on searching by date. We put this in to have the ability to search by revision-label, otherwise we can search just by date for a module which uses revision-label. We had also discussed using different limiter for the label and have something along the lines of: module-or-submodule-name['@'date]['#'revision-label].yang It'd seem that updating 7950 would be a good idea whichever way we go. 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] Revision label in filename (WAS Re: mbj … Reshad Rahman (rrahman)