[netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Tue, 10 March 2020 19:30 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 E51563A09A6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.999, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=GS46Gg2o; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=T+v19PLc
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 5cfawKNBsq9C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2765E3A0948 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4104D2291 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:30:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:subject:from:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=r1Soq84s1QFkyvD/sQo+NJ0X97 nCeEE9Xrx9WjV05vc=; b=GS46Gg2oE+IEV6P8+35u97vXcS6otK9HXcUbVgtSm9 Kp+dSHWfolt1WIFXUbgbMU+1pHONJmjOW9hJDTxg66r/PSvUSB/Dj8HrliYz30zE TeGO1Z9jHvOPo3Jpx/8vkJ7DGNjRDT65ZgcPv8xE1Gt4ST/Wf4oI4wXGtDdGprfu pHJ09FducKMw6l0IFlIn5S+vvnUZ+Z7IQsLBkm4eZpKamy47G6fdCgtZPF8xP36G 8ojv+Mxtto/0IABaokU15MIAdvDGVq64N30kK9PwPJipj/yMomSOPzNqyUaYp7f6 gwPwj08GjJQTC/bYv8gfbGDXRRqS6+8vxNIawilGOHKw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=r1Soq8 4s1QFkyvD/sQo+NJ0X97nCeEE9Xrx9WjV05vc=; b=T+v19PLcodIbq5OmLSfIfb moOtZ5GieCVnkqsr/RG/1xGJhDYuIEwJHABymmAi/sN1eR41lRRG6yUUN3hzbRMb nVW7s5OBOLV+f+P+fA+Vxd4+bSOUUefVBBhcxywujjZEgmPsvVh1ict5gmmc7Hg3 A42zaBZXpIRC8cBqsBT5pzfbEsMQEQXLLlB0SKjrkRCp0fYSTBhvKJ5Q4lc4ZLS1 d7jwXKOjujtF+G3HWMGHhZ74VyIzSBPxzN9Gv46snbOZzOdmrclClSw7DT1/23V+ N9gsPfbH/KPAnCWceW0BHu+8wkVDWvasEZrEuVVZYl83UTqDj3r1WusXk/fJPjLw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:1epnXtelJzp-aY-DL-8i9-HfudasY_rQ-WYSt4cEvO-I2lX3KMudZg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddvtddguddukecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhffogggtgfesthejre dtredtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgv thhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucfkphepudehkedrudejgedrgedrgeegnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseeg ieeikedrshgv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:1epnXvdiD4RvokolxfiIQ8fgRJ9Tr1PX2o9CswcsB1PfcS9yjeMi1g> <xmx:1epnXqEAfH10VlOnHmZyi-M6xOyh2dDBbluEEnFtAvKE2ydJdD-Jvw> <xmx:1epnXmH79GBHMrIALuZS7IYQzoyu77q8VAlxDRXw9VtJ2-7NUgw0yA> <xmx:1upnXrakP2vZMhg2fhtREoaUO2Oa6S32SCSkM4KLzjmhBXJI19WC7A>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7303C30611FB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:30:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:30:27 +0100
Message-Id: <20200310.203027.522986329204385274.id@4668.se>
To: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MTGomxcdyNOmB7mgsFhItLKNJgk>
Subject: [netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:30:40 -0000
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] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-mo… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yan… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)