Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Mon, 30 March 2020 21:50 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 4E1EC3A149F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:50:57 -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=fO175ssb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=kYK4VrCm
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 HmpQHkV6wLtc for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E4E13A146B for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC72B75A; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:50:49 -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= +/T5tJqulN971CPGVymSm0x4EErO+xKwssSZN8Lckmk=; b=fO175ssbYjvlmfy2 hk62l3AbPDZHvu/CejiMcOiM46XtT2bwxSL0k+TNb928fuJhYemL0haO9Hm6RHUy fXKAGTghk2ejw0AVbaUMBp9f0lduJqwJ8kVPMMsn7kbs0x44c8gZPqIw5a74PdB9 LZ5LzAYgx3pKz7uikjF4iZRmB5fhnHlRDhrC+TKO4a1rEOUQMkUAo/BLJQOvcxp/ Nkjh5Z/1y2vlkpKzadY/GTFos2FmlD9FViIKIeUGfh7cbjcyL+uS2kRGkorSYh32 wQPBT76RbEZRp431F0RCfx2tEFEkORM2VvgkxNXw23PNQ5s0B06wqEOEEXYe3QsF LDWsQg==
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=+/T5tJqulN971CPGVymSm0x4EErO+xKwssSZN8Lck mk=; b=kYK4VrCm8DZbdttSXb49rS+YiR+BFTi4T99iIkblpos78GqJVXLkP+/bD nmz6E55Po3FWlREjhRuJr/jxh5fhDyc4hWAwVuoIZZqoPZEOqEPkYunUIzU4WCFR 6JmXFeDG8LvegpI8R2KQX7LxF9DYYhMLWYCcJzBcUZYZMJuirQfiLs3SRw7WAkXA I7/tAadV0VsmI/ort9fuLVtHwFN+H89pOL/fgsBBdi8c0o7+LamHoekh93SQZqjG 7j9v35DJUGx4rrHvdMf/CoMoTD+r3OGn+4VSC6L/tfziETFmK/JvtzrbHq5tjoKX 4SQ92+a6HlalNXzm/74Ef6nLviAFw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:uWmCXvcNpbPYR9tTzBxuSF9og5KBr0Mz-2FKIJi7oYcrj94hyOSO9w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeiiedgtdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkffvuffhjghfofggtgfgsehtqh ertdertddunecuhfhrohhmpeforghrthhinhcuuehjnphrkhhluhhnugcuoehmsghjodhi vghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvgeqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpihgvth hfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeduheekrddujeegrdegrdeggeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjodhivghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:uWmCXgJzhglRcFvzWrXruaHNh_NfHS6EiXCTCpn31x-2VqqkbP4_Gw> <xmx:uWmCXrKpgfSrEgiho9dFw83ZV1PF16ASYwD2tZ-E_UFvtrnNCj95BA> <xmx:uWmCXvvgc3iXasFV-Jw-tlT3m5RMGOe2Pcq93rohe8Plxg4IYG7h4A> <xmx:uWmCXlbnYAGF_504l1ZIE9Kpxj_sowAvMOag_FDdH4uBrqm6-mL0KQ>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7A053306CA5E; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:50:46 +0200
Message-Id: <20200330.235046.60166687757387667.id@4668.se>
To: jason.sterne@nokia.com
Cc: rrahman@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR08MB2633E6B1CA925B2D6E4B3AAE9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <047FB87D-37B2-41F4-86D2-B9A03050B4EB@cisco.com> <20200330.223957.1196399215343087647.id@4668.se> <DM5PR08MB2633E6B1CA925B2D6E4B3AAE9BCB0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.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/ZlBpi8Nd8whF7Rr5hNEPjlpKmGc>
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 21:51:03 -0000
"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. > 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
- [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revis… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Ivory, William
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)