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

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Mon, 30 March 2020 18:20 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 F01ED3A0DA1 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.799
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.999, 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=SMSi/xkL; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=EFFeYBJ3
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 Dk_kZ1-ZAXGF for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F923A0DA0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9839B5E3; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:20:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:20:20 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh= 4wpqeoGgb3OUu0Iyf6Qr+obUM1bqbu3PUvUHJu85s3U=; b=SMSi/xkLnxBzlFXZ SmbtUXtMeKtWjFmPJQSxRqJuPcAJOMUNdnnn+uVIXIyMy0IXgq8WfYrsXr062bli 0DuRzazaQaKCgmVrNopU0b22soEU8Cridx441R+fN/dKcvuPfZADndmflXA/Hy7N k4j3Rac0dGKtcpQCZiGG2t4oatvTW3xndE4QJ47CjeW+8j8v3e13x+0PVsNaEPqa 7Ql0OSWHtnCvq56O6Oaxfdl27//nxRX7GGkhftNUhUNQyfHmMYwTAXGQCuyiwmkU ujm551gIKfXN1hPQP+ExugoEypjPH3zeihQcLaxv+uijVH0/JwcLZpAkagmkxhnC +8pDaA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=4wpqeoGgb3OUu0Iyf6Qr+obUM1bqbu3PUvUHJu85s 3U=; b=EFFeYBJ3aCc5ImOEJM/rthsuQ086mqPN8OCvnDB/dgOtDk7RpVQqPGew1 dPEL/ELnwavZ+HUhDW3FQQTQOOZejVQrF/6jwsGwD6QWk4ugtKS0gqrsOy+Yt8F9 zPVNgQQq8zm9I2CyHniCQPHArcuQqfr70tGVeQTDkods7KCoIyYlL9WuvkhQaTv2 qtu5q7fjKzaqHcqEH721Q5oS/0ULOplJokTqdWSM+zWGQx8W5yiXozpG8D0tI2ee 5rf7IT8f0I/cD0skIUgw0qLzbAVTOsujA9Ah3aX+ySd1XZBA8vIz8yrUUHgks4VL 5is6jV35A+Lkgt3yED8DKZXeW8+wA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:YziCXrYJwtCTxbbRw5VCuxmn2ixhDAHeONWzXDajXRBkjPgZP5fFaQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeihedguddvfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesth hqredtredtudenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdo ihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhivg htfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudehkedrudejgedrgedrgeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihii vgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrsh gv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:YziCXo3DsJwKkoDe8MQsDNe_3z4OkL5-XeOUTC0H9QC-e4FrLkJEng> <xmx:YziCXgmhv0LeeRB7lUV5IWGDjL-hmzODMFtVGZzfYrxj7umdCbxzXg> <xmx:YziCXs-8BuPPM8is4EEvTaSrt-LU7yTP2hq1zDYFSgL6cVdY9rdxFg> <xmx:ZDiCXlxtvUdqWuNHW-4QCptWritiSYc-p_cVvteDuVcptvfflP-kmA>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 61E3C306CA10; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:20:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20200330.202016.930329343788112268.id@4668.se>
To: rrahman@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <76623C79-BB91-4B5F-8FEA-406ADEAD1647@cisco.com>
References: <75CFDBD9-143C-407A-B7C3-26CEC51E229C@cisco.com> <20200328.094121.1160081114435152145.id@4668.se> <76623C79-BB91-4B5F-8FEA-406ADEAD1647@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/NG7h7ijiH00rUS7wgpYuXrLEgsQ>
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 18:20:24 -0000

"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 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
>     >     
>     > 
>     
>