Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]> 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?

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)"
    > <[e-mail] on behalf of
    > rrahman=[e-mail]> 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"
    >     <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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
    >         [e-mail]
    >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >         
    >     
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     netmod mailing list
    >     [e-mail]
    >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >     
    >