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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 20:46 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 7C4133A10CA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:46:10 -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 jc8ge1VojGNg for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb44.google.com (mail-yb1-xb44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b44]) (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 CA6EA3A10C5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb44.google.com with SMTP id c13so6630546ybp.9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:46:07 -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=XlGSJH1YaeWhyiYnytLW3GmRZSMxRB51eJHbphKTNzY=; b=mjfsJWewsfLB5PlvV5VBNjB4hhniFadbC3izBvP+6sSRZyo+CW5eLNaQZ3/VHtIqs0 YVbhhJWZzrC9CLkdZUR5vZQCuz8VLbUWGbBbv4C51+TW1Eicpt8MbBcQuLPLv5MMwGgP CVSvVQrsLws6icRhIXV+snH2kEmIQIGfURgqZlRIDubgCjcbOXaHHzehjT1B9cSxBvIL TyRZjvxVjybTFmQ24/6DgTAfUn+wLjPkDg/3t1nmSsLMyNpc5yVN8b3FRJNcbufTSDRb 3Gt4GkyRUIFnoMF+xEo4Hn4SkCX3BZ8mn9ihSuVhTz60MPiwR7QysHq0/KynDj8vAthd HdxA==
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=XlGSJH1YaeWhyiYnytLW3GmRZSMxRB51eJHbphKTNzY=; b=Ro//9A3Hov3+YM8f4tGXMqCdUbnkuV1gIWvIV8D2ft6B6IC3Ybphyy4nmbybiD4A1v Angei7njRKPgzXDDzJ6JAHPDsjiFvwxbSWSVZ1ZLpufvF0UW478RITFYhbNtelQd6G8V ldW4CLz+omwbwxl8aVYZNVmlKxsr5QeYCXh/912r6cf4YRe0lvYgZFESzFLpXkxd7z5d 3lpOTfOcW+AEX1ISYHQVqBb38edvrlI1v5KKRceto2fb2aAhtKZdiosVU9GNoqQxfq9X TyOivqRSHqxrwlX916ghL8gRYptgXO+r5oOef0hofhDwsC1NW3JTpX0W5OopiD9k/WNn sQCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2Wtu3ik1HVdTcOvL1O54Pfd2dFJFlV8RzmfZaCJt+dBsjZ3S6N GALlbZfn3E0z6PezCkGAq9DsGOb6iJSW16WD7EXHDA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vujr0MfQ52o6UptgEb50aVT6yok13yxuPkkHruOeA+xEX68LocVJbA4X+QmDHMzWaG/1psUna8PRehnrUPOa4w=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7102:: with SMTP id m2mr22314283ybc.134.1585601166571; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <75CFDBD9-143C-407A-B7C3-26CEC51E229C@cisco.com> <20200328.094121.1160081114435152145.id@4668.se> <76623C79-BB91-4B5F-8FEA-406ADEAD1647@cisco.com> <20200330.202016.930329343788112268.id@4668.se> <CABCOCHS=y8d00xHLzV+LNpvN_=jScw5VizGYWXGopsQAi8qZUw@mail.gmail.com> <7BF6294F-E354-45D3-B0FC-F4801ADC3F78@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BF6294F-E354-45D3-B0FC-F4801ADC3F78@cisco.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:45:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSyxBtCaBVTMK7uO3t0TfMVkfGFpTZLV21HnY1KX97Zzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Bj=C3=B6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a129605a2188a16"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/KdoCaYsVhX_oEZt2s1XICwq4IWg>
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 20:46:11 -0000

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:26 PM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
>
> *From: *'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>
> *Date: *Monday, March 30, 2020 at 2:51 PM
> *To: *Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
> *Cc: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>om>, NetMod WG <
> netmod@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label
> statements
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM 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.
>
>
>
> I do not like modified semver because it will cause confusion with the
> real semver
>
> introduced by OpenConfig.
>
>
>
> Sometimes multiple release trains are needed, and the revision label (in
> addition to revision-date)
>
> can help distinguish revisions from each release train, so plain semver
> that is introduced over time
>
> would be OK.
>
>
>
> It is possible to introduce only BC changes on each release train.
>
> The BC vs. NBC issue has nothing to do with multiple release trains.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am all for using rev:nbc-changes or rev:editorial-changes (which I
> think should be added) in IETF modules.
>
>
>
> I agree that this is sufficient and modified semver provides no added
> value, only confusion.
>
> <RR> There are 2 questions here:
>
>    1. Is revision-label useful? We believe it is useful since it allows a
>    user to easily figure out whether 2 revisions are (N)BC
>    2. If it is useful, what’s the best scheme to use? Semver, modified
>    semver, …?
>
>
>
> You’re not keen on modified semver just because of the name, or are there
> other reasons?
>
>
>


IMO it is a bad idea to overload a well-understood pattern like
major.minor.patch with
extra semantics like backward-compatibility.  A tool or a person can read
the revision history
for details about revision changes.  Adding letters to the end just
confuses people who
thought they were looking at openconfig-version or a familiar linux library
version string.


I don't agree that the IETF should be working to normalize NBC changes in
the first place.


Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>

Andy


>
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
>