Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-06

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

I have read the draft and I think it is ready to move forward

I think that also this draft is well written and it is addressing some real needs

I have only one doubt since I am not sure it has been an oversight or a conscious decision

The I-D draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-05 says that the "the revision-label MAY be used instead of the revision date in the filename of a YANG file", however this draft does not say anything about whether this has an impact on the file name to be used in the <CODE BEGINS> tag

According to section 3.2 of RFC 8407, the " name string form that includes the revision date SHOULD be used"

Is the intention not to change this requirement also when semver revision labels are used?

Please note that with the convention defined in section 5.2, using the semver revision labels would most likely cause the line with <CODE BEGIN> tag to exceed the 72 character limit of Internet-Drafts ...

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: lunedì 21 febbraio 2022 18:21
> To: NETMOD Group <[e-mail]>
> Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-06
> 
> All,
> 
> This starts working group last call on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver/
> 
> The working group last call ends on March 7 th.
> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Please note that once WG Last call is complete, this document will be held and
> submitted as a set with the other versioning documents (once they are ready)
> for publication request to the IESG.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)
> 
>