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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 2DA893A154D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=EaDV+18z; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=vNnWRqN+
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 sFlq1QvheJvJ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05FC83A1455 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21796; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585606278; x=1586815878; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=pyDQqAe4hLw1uOnpoOofJtKKJtLurDSPBZ5ZY17ZgBk=; b=EaDV+18z1n9d/ah42Eg9E8RMTaUE/4hZad0a2oaRD77cJfCvoFXotkVH LK/obHwudiXz/makKDVDaf0Qw13r7KgRFkfMkHjm8fFqPeJvFddmuMl97 cAcK7316R3pGoADaLL0zd/8rsUimHxO8vbPy6IM22tFpNJOuFnx+2JyyB w=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ao+WGZxSntm6K6zcKkbhFzBBpzNpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBdfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOjYgFcRHXVlN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CxAADpbYJe/5xdJa1mGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gVRQBWxYIAQLKgqEEINFA4ppgjolmB+BQoE?= =?us-ascii?q?QA1QKAQEBDAEBGAsKAgQBAYN/RQIXghskOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVY?= =?us-ascii?q?MhXABAQEBAgEBARAREQwBASwLAQsEAgEIEQQBAQECAiYCAgIlCxUICAIEAQ0?= =?us-ascii?q?FIoMEAYJLAw4gAQ6idgKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWFFRiCDAMGgQ4qjDEagUE/gRE?= =?us-ascii?q?nDBSCHy4+gmcBAQKBSRoHECECglgygiyNfwEDgneGHooDj04KgjyHYY80Ahu?= =?us-ascii?q?CTJRJhFePGYFRh0WSbQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSKBWHAVOyoBgkFQGA2OHYNzhRS?= =?us-ascii?q?FQXQCgSeNDgGBDwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,325,1580774400"; d="scan'208";a="748806856"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Mar 2020 22:11:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 02UMBHWv001264 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:11:17 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:11:17 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:11:16 -0500
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:11:16 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=EtYMYvnvFyDUUhfbK6yLpTpG7u3wxKxEH3xZj0rUiqYBHoiRfECLJIXFaziS4ebrlHgQLzNvkfWiu6zkHg/lQaOJ9Rcd0DyewqnUmpjl1rP7GHzgogKToo1Y2hlahIAiA1m34zxtJAA/SgFWVp71XlALJNjbM0kjU3+nk2U2T14G6SK70/qbymxzXhWKKlBxutbHTrnas017uvIjCOimK0C8Nj31Vrr/NluO/xoGrqhhpCRrCBV7AeLuRnjqS4LwupCYEHtl+guhwiAajDpWXuObgkqklJsQQ7fsNrXouDZagN/cQr+vi3TWVzD4Mm1qEI/JABOda21GhG0+O//CDA==
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=pyDQqAe4hLw1uOnpoOofJtKKJtLurDSPBZ5ZY17ZgBk=; b=l5+3X/2YB1jmtOwVpbe8mCpNoDJ6aypsEGNn0gUEQajW0cdc5IyVVcFeJwoN3QHG42fJIQN8w3sd2QlNtGF/0lVz/OWgwHns6vnSClDRbSo6yr1kjJTU/PjwBiwfgJVVSrOK1S4bwuHEzxhuo7/y8tAAJcMQ8IBeUl+dyGy7IhGbyM74NHyIUAiwmItPwlnEcHtJtaiw2OkA0F/moTEz9I3Lc/wwTaDSNNimsMv7C1eePMoLJQiFDGXO5upYhhtyL0VVi1rH9g1W80k9ovGo948TXXwT6pVlpWJHBSSGLuZOsWRjYhUZJK6NMsRiw1XoCOahGUzR1UEKVATpEcZoBQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=pyDQqAe4hLw1uOnpoOofJtKKJtLurDSPBZ5ZY17ZgBk=; b=vNnWRqN+eHNv59Ubcsb4dkDJxLpQ504vAghHAAOVHNGoNJLn8bHgZKURGXtQRegRs3M7tSjoOL8r/MwGDiB6T27a0WwYv3eE8lQCbxvsJgTSnPoeOuhsWhET+0UtY1klT+rh4Jq4QRcBLU27jE014xPS4FqwjWsQ5oPFjJfin9U=
Received: from DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:69::31) by DM6PR11MB3530.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:72::19) 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 22:11:15 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91cb:6555:db9b:53fa]) by DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91cb:6555:db9b:53fa%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:11:15 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWFydGluIEJqw7Zya2x1bmQ=?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, "jason.sterne@nokia.com" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
Thread-Index: AQHWBNyukTO5JXWurk2ljZZiFHPveKhhLBqAgABJ5QD//934AIAASQ+AgAAPaoCAAARfAP//wqUA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:11:15 +0000
Message-ID: <23333468-9959-4ECA-B529-73E1D906E3E9@cisco.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:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [70.31.50.95]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e01788a7-40ca-4a9c-4c50-08d7d4f743a9
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3530:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB3530D6499FA847092D915781ABCB0@DM6PR11MB3530.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6430;
x-forefront-prvs: 0358535363
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR11MB3420.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(346002)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(316002)(36756003)(91956017)(6486002)(2906002)(33656002)(110136005)(76116006)(4326008)(66446008)(5660300002)(66946007)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(6512007)(6506007)(53546011)(966005)(478600001)(71200400001)(30864003)(86362001)(8676002)(8936002)(186003)(2616005)(66574012)(81166006)(26005)(81156014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.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: xDPBd3C2r0AYa0FEJ8LmzGLGZhVu+dWZ6JOt5Ns53XS27qH6KPU17poeFBhbLggUNoWM4K2eW6HbU8+73jQnwWc8gWG8hZzCN60n4Fo8+DsukYEXz0Ap816SNP7LTBlhI0w7zQhmrO+JhELjRYVt2Q==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8F6DFF7060BE9247992EEDE178D8CF55@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e01788a7-40ca-4a9c-4c50-08d7d4f743a9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2020 22:11:15.2194 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 7UgPspHg+vxtwxoVhkns6exOe8Sk+Bc9iMSe8OVE1Mdfv/tM5JJsnE7ELtruy+1gFsDkC7vY7IY3s/5Bh7o8ZA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3530
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/U3jcuzHY1IE7xnHJf7u2GDGxceI>
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 22:11:35 -0000

On 2020-03-30, 5:51 PM, "Martin Björklund" <mbj+ietf@4668.se> wrote:

    "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.
You are correct that once a branch is poisoned with an 'M', the information provided is not as rich.
Even though you don't know whether 1.0.3M is BC/NBC with 1.0.2M, you still know that
- 1.0.2M is NBC with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0
- 1.0.3M is NBC with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0
- 1.0.1 is BC with 1.0.0

Still useful IMO.

Regards,
Reshad.
    
    > 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