[netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear NETMOD WG,

Note the change of WG from NETCONF to NETMOD

Is this something that should be discussed during the Tuesday "NETMOD 
YANG Version Discussions " calls?

Regards, Benoit


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: New Version Notification for 
draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt
Date: 	Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:26:06 +0100
From: 	Alex Huang Feng <[e-mail]>
To: 	Netconf <[e-mail]>
CC: 	Pierre Francois <[e-mail]>, Benoit Claise 
<[e-mail]>, Thomas Graf <[e-mail]>



Dear Netconf WG,

I would like to raise a discussion on how this YANG module should be 
used and therefore if the current types are the right ones.

First of all, this draft wants to address two main issues:
1. Adds the version or the semver in the stablish-subscription and 
modify-subscription rpcs to allow selecting the versionned YANG module 
in YANG-push
2. Adds the version and the semver in the subscription-started and 
subscription-modified notifications and the subscription datastore to 
have the version and the semver in them.

My concern is the following:
In the rpc, the current “revision" is a "rev:revision-date-or-label", 
meaning that in the “revision” leaf you can chose either the revision 
“2020-01-10” or the semver “1.0.0”. Should this be “rev:revision-date” 
instead?
I am asking myself which is the wanted use-case of the different leaves. 
I understand that if the "revision-label" is used, there is no need for 
the “revision” (in the subscription rpc)?

On the notification side, I do think both are necessary, but the same 
issue, the “revision” should maybe be “rev:revision-date”.

Two ways to solve this:

1.
in the rpc: the "revision" being “rev:revision-date” and the 
"revision-label” be “ysver:version”
in the notifications and datastore: the revision being 
“rev:revision-date” and the "revision-label” be “ysver:version”

OR

2.
in the rpc: only having “revision” leaf being 
“rev:revision-date-or-label” and removing "revision-label" leaf.
in the notifications and datastore: the "revision" being 
“rev:revision-date” and the "revision-label” be “ysver:version”

Does this make sense? What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Alex Huang Feng


> On 17 Jan 2023, at 15:43, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Dear netconf wg,
>
> We addressed in section 4.2 a copy paste error on the yang module and 
> published the document in the -03 version.
>
> Best wishes
> Thomas
>
> A new version of I-D, 
> draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Thomas Graf and posted to the IETF 
> repository.
>
> Name: draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning
> Revision: 03
> Title: Support of Versioning in YANG Notifications Subscription
> Document date: 2023-01-17
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 15
> URL: 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03.txt
> Status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning/
> Htmlized: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning
> Diff: 
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-03
>
> Abstract:
> This document extends the YANG notifications subscription mechanism
> to specify the YANG module semantic version at the subscription.
> Then, a new extension with the revision and the semantic version of
> the YANG push subscription state change notification is proposed.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 
> 7:27 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Pierre Francois <[e-mail]>; Alex Huang Feng 
> <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> Subject: FW: New Version Notification for 
> draft-tgraf-netconf-yang-notifications-versioning-02.txt
>
> Dear netconf wg,
>
> On top of the changes in the -01 version based on inputs from IETF 115 
> from of Jason Stern and Rob Wilton, we added in section 4.1.2 the YANG 
> full tree view, added descriptions and resolved some issues in the 
> YANG module raised by the YANG validation.
> On the behalf of the authors I like to request the adoption of the 
> document to the netconf working group and request a slot at IETF 116 
> to present an update, discuss and conclude how to progress on 
> subscription id being mandatory.
>
> Best wishes
> Thomas