Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

["Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Your approach sounds good to me. I was forgetting about the "editorial" level of change (e.g. the 3rd part of SemVer).  So I agree that moving a leaf would be an editorial change in both submodules.

But what if a module is not doing include by revision? It may indeed make sense to include by revision but it isn't mandated. For sake of argument here what if the module itself didn't change at all in this case?

It *feels* like the right thing to do here is to consider the module overall to have an editorial change.

The revision statement of sub-modules has a scope of the file (the sub-module). It isn't clear to me whether the revision of a *module* has a scope that includes all sub-modules or if it is just a scope of the module file. But we could clarify that as part of this work.

Jason

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 11:54 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules
> 
> "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2020-05-08, 5:12 PM, "Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >     > Hi,
> >     >
> >     > This came up during this week's meeting. We briefly discussed whether
> >     > there's a need to version sub-modules or can we restrict versioning to
> >     > modules only. We would like to hear from the WG on this, especially
> >     > those with experience managing sub-modules.
> >
> >     Yes I think this is needed.  At tail-f, there are several modules with
> >     many submodules.  These modules always use include by revision, and
> >     always the main module is always uddated when any submodule is
> >     updated.  It doens't make much sense IMO to not use include by
> >     revision.
> >
> >     > For completeness, below is an update from Jason in github:
> >     > My initial reaction is that we should not preclude the use of revision
> >     > label with a submodule. Submodules have their own version today. The
> >     > trick is to define (or explicitly say it is out of scope) whether a
> >     > module version must change if any underlying submodule versions
> >     > change. That gets difficult if you consider simply moving a leaf from
> >     > one sub-module to another (without changing anything else about it -
> >     > its context, etc).
> >
> >     Why would this be difficult?  The revision date is updated on any
> >     editorial change (see 7.1.9 of RFC 7950).  So if a leaf gets moved
> >     from submodule A to submodule B, then their revisions are udpated, and
> >     hence the module's include-by revision is udpated, and hence the
> >     module's revision ois updated.
> >
> > I think what Jason meant is that by moving a leaf between submodules,
> > it's possible the module's schema didn't change.
> > So yes revision date is updated, but you can't blindly update the
> > revision-label.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Reshad.
> >
> >     /martin
> >
> >
> >
> >     >
> >     > Regards,
> >     > Reshad.
> >     >
> >     > On 2020-03-27, 5:44 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman
> (rrahman)"
> >     > <[e-mail] on behalf of
> >     > rrahman=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Hi,
> >     >
> >     >     https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/49
> >     >
> >     >             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?
> >     >
> >     >     Good point. What was meant by that the label space for modules and
> >     >     sub-modules are orthogonal.  e.g. the sub-module and module both
> have
> >     >     the same label, it shouldn't be inferred that the 2 are related.
> >     >     We'll change/clarify the text.
> >     >
> >     >     Regards,
> >     >     Reshad.
> >     >
> >     >     On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman
> (rrahman)"
> >     >     <[e-mail] on behalf of
> >     >     rrahman=[e-mail]> 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"
> >     >         <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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
> >     >             [e-mail]
> >     >             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >         _______________________________________________
> >     >         netmod mailing list
> >     >         [e-mail]
> >     >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     _______________________________________________
> >     >     netmod mailing list
> >     >     [e-mail]
> >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >