Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 22:15 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 6A8303A13EC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 m-Lh88kAXGQl for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D200C3A1465 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id h205so9987475ybg.6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zoix8OqEFJ+N3GXRr61KY7XUHd3PrGCVtuTCBIl+Q7g=; b=F0WHjng1BmpS3MSzBO2OLxqv6J/CnH+49OA3XDViYppxm/G+YqjNoD41mLjUf/Uwcb eOwBVm4YdpBVfMh0tHWjjTuAud69s35Uln9W2Rq2zMFlO7dgVWaHFK4/gw0hTUXIOJJf YIAqZZUvM/V08Z50R7++Wa1bCsYWfonF35uxf09c6+i+0DsLd1ZHKEJco8CZLR4t9tLZ uInSmT0CxIbvG1OVamT7VNWSYM0QvyL/PYpecJ4CtQlNmhdH9FpDSDuECFJjel9uzA/q KUUNDP0VRvSbJnrWT70MgwG3WcpoV2G1OHu+1qC9SsWZoFsOMizJtQQA4dRFAlgMlTfi SY1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zoix8OqEFJ+N3GXRr61KY7XUHd3PrGCVtuTCBIl+Q7g=; b=DswT7IU54hfWz/UFly+nNApmsq+q0hDkCuyAgOod/K1G3HI7GCK02h1QJ7t3HPz6JM KaoncWjg13LzwDey6FatuAYv2j9YJGE4uGarvf8guUChf+3ROsb1XeW4onmPcynkHAUS awzNXfbHf7tS1Z3hf5QZyYHC1LS3A42gQzt1nEvfHR0Wit9OiStngzAbnOMfCVdpnCkG X1eb9CH3gBt3ijo6jws+GFNgr55nZs2ebWs+k+zVmXHln6V2YngQHNX9rVR1/7XwFDeG OuwtFXVXy8V7aecRywAr8qDXpsQIToRnHb7DpjN2fNzuhDrRYRESbeHz6W5QlLPXtosB uuYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2ajfo7JSoXCWc81HzAIb+s9Mvbtxm4qsictWNJfPHr8SON9Mgb ADM2B2FN2I1W+q86SAzu6bZDDDZB7+b10caRChsAzw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsrkpeiMSc/xvdXrh+YD2q+0j84jkFDCqRdOzZ24rK3A+ZG4BjWOWamU/zCCudKBBP/bnPpRa7yL17ZnGn8iQU=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7208:: with SMTP id n8mr25476305ybc.234.1585606541236; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <047FB87D-37B2-41F4-86D2-B9A03050B4EB@cisco.com> <20200330.223957.1196399215343087647.id@4668.se> <DM5PR08MB2633E6B1CA925B2D6E4B3AAE9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20200330.235046.60166687757387667.id@4668.se> <DM5PR08MB26331E2259B8FAE739902CAD9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR08MB26331E2259B8FAE739902CAD9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:15:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSU4cffoW9Wz-UWqdvOQzp7t9LJUC_B5QS+fFBmXBtuXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
Cc: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a4f11105a219cac3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JVrCro8D27IFUvAuTY1Ais4XaXY>
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:15:59 -0000
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:57 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < jason.sterne@nokia.com> wrote: > Please see inline > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:51 PM > > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com> > > Cc: rrahman@cisco.com; netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label > > statements > > > > "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > But it is not true. What happened between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M? > > > > > > It tells you there is an NBC change between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M. > > > > No. As you note below it says that all bets are off. The change > > between these two could be a spelling error fix. Hence, Reshad's > > statement that "The revision label allows a user to easily figure out > > whether 2 revisions are (N)BC." is not correct. > > [>>JTS: ] You are correct and I made a mistake in my reply (looked too > quickly). The M gives you one chance to indicate a NBC change in a branch. > After that you no longer know (i.e. no worse than no revision label at all). > it is a compromise that allows: > - knowledge about the nature of changes on a branch that hasn't been > poisoned yet > - one chance to alert users that an NBC change was made on a branch > That is useful enough to have it IMO. > > Don't agree. Also find the argument that the revision history will be incomplete not convincing. If a developer knows enough to add the M then they can know enough to fill in the revision-stmt correctly. > > > > > The M gives an indication that a branch has been "poisoned" by an > > > NBC change and that all bets are off from that point onwards in that > > > branch. > > > > > > /martin > Andy > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund > > > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:40 PM > > > > To: rrahman@cisco.com > > > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include > revision-label > > > > statements > > > > > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2020-03-30, 2:20 PM, "Martin Björklund" <mbj+ietf@4668.se> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" <mbj+ietf@4668.se > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "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. > > > > > > > > > > > > So are you proposing we use some other revision-label scheme > (e.g. > > > > semver 2.0.0) for IETF modules? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or that IETF modules shouldn't use revision-labels? > > > > > > > > > > That IETF shouldn't use revision labels. > > > > > > > > > > The revision label allows a user to easily figure out whether 2 > > > > > revisions are (N)BC. > > > > > > > > I think you meant "modified semver as revision label allows ..." > > > > > > > > But it is not true. What happened between 1.0.2M and 1.0.3M? > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without the label, you always have to use tooling. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Reshad. > > > > > > > > > > I am all for using rev:nbc-changes or rev:editorial-changes > (which I > > > > > think should be added) in IETF modules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do you have something else in mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Reshad. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 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)