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

"Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jason.sterne@nokia.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 F42283A13F5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 QJb_qLDQB6bw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11on2128.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.236.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAF5A3A13F4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=GeO0CVvQHizsF8GR7wSCVT7DIxt0e/Yq4bnbzT8ZAFGmmRCmTK9dqlT15LOShhGcPM5ZXQiZHMy1bh1XYOGdMX1lkIL5og22Ra+YGyEQLjg7y7eqFNP54i7L/9v8nRGrbuQ3qWVeW5x4HxkpcM0dYmlx3CSeErMtDv9dcEiHD7Fv0UPVPrjNxsMnjZTIky8uA8upFeMt2ydzB/oshSkWmZAKdlfDuK0erGt0vLtHJBXPOIDZbQElJLpOylUgKNImLSELK/7i1NpE1IQUmkJXEJZxtc9SBa6rKe9llNVYSOBP/rVFpinc670AuUkJqXfRiNKVFFI+u7DOrWA+LXCuHQ==
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=B41+AETYAg6XaXHiQxHlu3cBq74T7k6F8/b5e1b2Ylc=; b=HDyyUutb/MGA1XWWPxsuAk+oEq0qGDiSNtgEa6w9KyCh31c6i3IOYFAVcA7r79TpI91PmPDWm1KG07y5MwCPQQEGvzocJy/b6I43Dfc5i2R3RrGP3LpZvSCYW9QTtJwi1XjJh3EA1yOJmo9Gge3E0np09nEq2e7nRM/wEahM6OuXsmZkUUQKWPlfJeLJVZt66IT3w4w2iavV9viYDA6+tFc+jN1ysBa8vT1SE7Hv2m5KkiD+hNtYS6KvAS3FUgUegUnBpJGxFmUg5R9m7IHtkpjH0XiccG7vK28/4C2D+xOrxlm102DxjzYTF2QTbz8YWFtM1ykVrvHWQtPXNF761g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=B41+AETYAg6XaXHiQxHlu3cBq74T7k6F8/b5e1b2Ylc=; b=AUeKziguwD+Pc1a21/VlkDn1TI1SNDOt2CohrA8y6TsAbZZgEAfdjvllqsB9wAzQTFtf58UHr2z7pcymQmSnoM8qpHdMipD1MMyGtMakB3/lcSEbb3DUTK/JUTKNmk0ic7kr8zmwSrsZ0XxO54azzkfIX4hokHalGj/s/hFl/a8=
Received: from DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:ca::21) by DM5PR08MB3610.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:69::32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.20; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:56:51 +0000
Received: from DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c00d:56c3:675e:ec63]) by DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c00d:56c3:675e:ec63%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:56:51 +0000
From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Bj=F6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
CC: "rrahman@cisco.com" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
Thread-Index: AQHWBtNsM0hFMwGcFk22QjMBKcTjZ6hhqAFwgAAE4QCAAACBsA==
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:56:50 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR08MB26331E2259B8FAE739902CAD9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20200330.235046.60166687757387667.id@4668.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jason.sterne@nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [65.110.221.64]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3f6b8962-f6e1-49e6-7202-08d7d4f5408d
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR08MB3610:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR08MB3610494F06AA8EFC6CFE1E9E9BCB0@DM5PR08MB3610.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7219;
x-forefront-prvs: 0358535363
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(66556008)(316002)(66446008)(76116006)(66946007)(478600001)(66476007)(54906003)(4326008)(64756008)(33656002)(53546011)(6506007)(66574012)(52536014)(55016002)(26005)(8936002)(81156014)(186003)(9686003)(966005)(8676002)(5660300002)(7696005)(71200400001)(30864003)(81166006)(86362001)(2906002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.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: ggs/R11clh8OjPPxBMLEFLFuOPMpOMu4I9YN+X2+cc2PrSVYAkL7XnmS+qd5rU6h6SzaecOH+fw0DZ4EJkTqWqQyau3vroa4wEUmnjv7kSKYLfngQvt/Ngbe6XOYa+VqWzjxu3Ku/XUgYF7hrxhSvA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3f6b8962-f6e1-49e6-7202-08d7d4f5408d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2020 21:56:51.0062 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 07qwJK/I+bgCNWc+gvcOtRZZhexC1h/8NgaYp95CMmUoN02SS+GXlvYc7Rfe9bmgi04WO4ssaEqpineDwmSJ/Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR08MB3610
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ecuB5mdji8aJokSLQIyLvgsFtWQ>
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 21:56:56 -0000

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. 

> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> >
> > > -----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