[netmod] Typos and smaller issues (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/53

We'll make changes/fixes as per the comments below. All good.

        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 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>/

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