IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang" or <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang"

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Fri, 24 March 2017 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 1622C129B10 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 LuBDwOYfDFrJ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0138.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E18EF128BE1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=/3t80LhTWGWzJH6GYIh/kukGO9KVm2oiK3A+bYhgzqY=; b=TqaefA8iDptgya5uBaZj47zStWwsFZJKvzu284NUzBvtD1Oj7QD9BfL7oGwM07LajUqbDGtiVMvGR3zW7lwxHE0rFMOlrba5CyhcMO0dM0viok5AYqEnsPiSl6wAKWZidNUYjVRJgYrNViMEC1d9OmJAGPpE3DoZMvpNOAPep8k=
Received: from BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.117.151) by BN3PR0501MB1443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.117.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.991.4; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:32:54 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.117.151]) by BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.117.151]) with mapi id 15.01.0991.017; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:32:54 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
CC: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang" or <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang"
Thread-Index: AQHSpC3f63JwphpgHEaajT0PcpLwG6Gi8bKA
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:32:54 +0000
Message-ID: <30B9FE1D-D8E8-4255-847B-DBAD1AA6E73D@juniper.net>
References: <02834066-3540-790e-bdda-abc5d90bfdac@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <02834066-3540-790e-bdda-abc5d90bfdac@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1443; 7:miTwsIkJcyMx0qM9NhhSO8t+J5WtghX2FDtS7Q55yLYjB7vSc7n1uJg/KIHGhlv7pmeAw/OlsUJCQKAiliCmdtAjOz2zy/RvTwJgV5/NxbWOIM0+ifeVaZZv3SuuLES2ML39qj8bqLbOqsQGTcb//75F9tQeBtmQXywq0z8/Q47MJTM8HP7OQBAaKRB6gRvuOkJkTETQ3/XkjLPoRRrwJSV3HFzBlSEgQDQK7IAc9rh3UmiqRZMzERNEn3teqVFaNlTtDFeRO2EtFVyF/hlqgzCYtVYkv02bGqICN/jwCxeNzyb31ew07t4mo7vxa7nlxLh9PRba1MFc5b7fTFCKyA==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b295907b-271d-40e0-a5d8-08d47255b1d7
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0501MB1443C7606B0EE551B9719F37A53E0@BN3PR0501MB1443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443;
x-forefront-prvs: 0256C18696
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39450400003)(39850400002)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39410400002)(5423002)(2906002)(6246003)(3280700002)(3660700001)(6486002)(82746002)(83506001)(230783001)(2950100002)(5660300001)(77096006)(7736002)(8676002)(81166006)(3846002)(6506006)(305945005)(25786009)(83716003)(53936002)(38730400002)(6116002)(102836003)(8936002)(4326008)(189998001)(122556002)(36756003)(4001350100001)(66066001)(86362001)(6306002)(6512007)(33656002)(229853002)(54356999)(99286003)(76176999)(50986999)(6436002)(2900100001)(222073002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1443; H:BN3PR0501MB1442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0B6729EFF31C0B43947EBDD4696F9E27@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Mar 2017 01:32:54.6588 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0501MB1443
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ksY6YofYeSOvBXbSKKDEBDjkKrE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang" or <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang"
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:32:58 -0000

Hi Benoit,

Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:

   The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string 
   identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of 
   [RFC7950].

While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:

   The name of the file SHOULD be of the form:

     module-or-submodule-name ['@' revision-date] ( '.yang' / '.yin' )

   "module-or-submodule-name" is the name of the module or 
   submodule, and the optional "revision-date" is the latest
   revision of the module or submodule, as defined by the
   "revision" statement (Section 7.1.9).

While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the 
revision statement is optional within the module?  What is 
the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
The RFC7950 text isn't clear.

My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file 
name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision 
statement appears within the module.

Kent // contributor


-----ORIGINAL MESSAGE-----

Dear all,

[Preparing the IETF hackathon]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2
What is the guideline regarding:
     <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang"
     versus
     <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo.yang"

Right now, we have a mix of behaviors.
This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the 
revision, but not always.

Regards, Benoit

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email