Re: [netmod] comments on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: 2019. november 18., hétfő 0:53
> To: Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04
> 
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:06 AM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   o  leaf-list module
> > > 
> > >     The type of this leaf-list is a string with:
> > > 
> > >       pattern '.+@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}\.yang';
> > > 
> > >     I think the revision needs to be optional, and the suffix ".yang"
> > >     dropped, since it doesn't add any value:
> > > 
> > >       pattern '.+(@\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})?';
> > > 
> > >    (same for inline-spec).
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > IMO the filespec SHOULD follow the pattern in
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.2
> > > 
> > > BALAZS: It does follow the pattern except that I made the revision
> > > date mandatory. It is needed to properly understand the instance data.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Except a new file extension SHOULD be used.
> > > 
> > > Suggest: .yif == YANG Instance File
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Obviously it would be a horrible idea to use .yang since that 
> > > extension
> > > 
> > > is already used to identify a YANG schema file.
> > > 
> > > BALAZS: The leaf-list lists not the instance data files but the
> > > content defining YANG modules, so IMO “.yang” is an appropriate
> > > extension. It is really a YANG schema file we are listing.
> > 
> > No, you are not listing a file name, you are listing the name and,
> > optionally, the revision of a YANG *module*.  It can internally be
> > stored as a .yang file a .yin file, or as a blob in a database.
> > 
> > Hence, we should not have the ".yang" suffix here.
> > BALAZS2:
> > OK, I will add the '.yin' possibility.
> 
> IMO this is even worse.  Which suffix should I use?  What difference
> does it make?
> 
> > I would like to keep the file extension because 
> > [e-mail] looks more familiar
> 
> I think it is a bad idea to use something that looks familiar but
> change the meaning of it.  It is *not* a filename, it is a pair
> modulename + optional revision; an identifier for the module.
> 
> , will be easier to understand, than just
> > ietf-yang-types@2019-12-07
> > IMHO in practice systems might very well use it for file lookup.
> 
> But if I use this for file lookup, and I use YIN, and I try to use an
> instance file that lists the modules as ".yang", this won't work.
> 
> 
> Perhaps solve this by changing the leaf-list into:
> 
>   container inline-modules {
>     list module {
>       key name;
>       leaf name { ... }
>       leaf revision { ... }
>     }
>   }
> 
> /martin
> 
> BALAZS3: People explicitly asked for a short, simple solution, so
> reusing the well-known module-file-naming format seemed logical, and
> nobody misunderstood it till now.
> I would really like to avoid creating a list with 2 separate leaf's:
> longer, more complex. It goes against the express wishes of other
> group members.
> If you prefer we can drop the file extension.

Yes I think this is better.

> IMHO it will look strange.

Perhaps this document will set the standard for future references to
modules, so that this short-hand notation is used in more places,
rather than separate name / revision leafs...

BTW, you mentioned in your presentation of
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities that this doc will be
impacted by changes in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format.  I
think that this is ok and we continue the process for this document.
The RFC editor won't publish it until instance-file-format is done, so
there is time to fix the examples.


/martin