Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sat, 09 May 2020 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
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 E08B73A0B27 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 May 2020 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 odQYaew8Tn9S for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 May 2020 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 305F93A0B23 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 May 2020 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id x18so2595730ybq.8 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 May 2020 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tvx8TbMjoa6+nZsyAsfFuzbi+ku5x/ydzvkFp1KDCGI=; b=R0IPSn/IRIR86ZSKWglNUFrQBl4UGgOl3+7AmNMDSkf0LOfyb2ZQy8W0CA4EXRjR7J iQpNBDZ9YDA9tUr4d0S3zqb1Y0/LN7oAnTyFXu67w5lk7j6/zastrAPg54QjIJURDv1V IThx5QHugpV1xGiEMkWlgvZB6vJchHj0QxwZOE97rFNzaReRITSjVuokCjmulSu5um+8 78+gYKUnc+5n8IQSMy2nOlhuiki8CeQU0Pir6RWXzWjjo0GDapZPuhENlBJ0gVdkcMY0 FRXmDnI9bBIR4pJyRLTGiQxB6OlOUNIXx7mOeSNpy3zGdITSe72rEUdI6GOK45gjkh5r fWfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tvx8TbMjoa6+nZsyAsfFuzbi+ku5x/ydzvkFp1KDCGI=; b=idPmW4k0hekNUmoAym9xr9WjLm6mS2C6tfb3BLCAV6qpvGrwPP694AE9NrLnqST9IP LEUvXnFE+TENpU9DPwhEheY/xZ+YtxDkdaQhGeo6k67xamwdaeLvg1XgVXPG2CoNgcgc RZCRQ9YK4joM1BptCPwgRB76yY9qIitTw2UrrmVtA4SYNqgDZlPxmekMXRaKqCM5MiSQ O5sULrpKccI2PIcojIBFRzjDTGk5GzL8w0XN5uC2woF34EUnPC9F9yXUa9LiH3EdkTVF m/u5Vn+tyWc6SBmeC9xn559D08wADz+3E5garWobkRrtG1uHji3DhEn/gP18fbvQft7x L9wQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pubpns7LyKAoXlx1iAJLkYRoEp91b18XtVNAwBYUKkRZ5y8EsfXz fGYZy798JEjv3lIvwdDXZhVJKIogSIItC0lFXb4nJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJqw3xkRjl6iCISlCFl8B+SFQ6i69WDWuRgrEzEKWb6uXh5lbzWlsN3WlMqsY+KEQqWuu+8olTYkAA2iBzeqxY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:74c:: with SMTP id s12mr9360303ybq.234.1589036624940; Sat, 09 May 2020 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E42934AA-A95D-4BC3-A9F9-F940734EA84F@cisco.com> <AM6PR07MB4520D033C8F8F32FD72F464DA0A30@AM6PR07MB4520.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR07MB4520D033C8F8F32FD72F464DA0A30@AM6PR07MB4520.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 08:03:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTn9VOHfkEkFeY=XyctDiMdsa7AhHZ9yS_cTrgsEJY6=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090aa9e05a5386ba2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/oYdrKwPnL8o-f30Rv1KsVoz5FNA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename
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: Sat, 09 May 2020 15:03:50 -0000
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 4:07 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote: > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Reshad Rahman > (rrahman) <rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: 08 May 2020 15:13 > > Hi, > > We discussed using something along the lines of > module-or-submodule-name['@'date]['#'revision-label].yang. Questions to the > WG: > 1) Is there a need for both date and revision-label or is one of them > enough? > > <tp> > One of them is quite enough and since the date is embedded in many systems > it would be wrong to change it. The module name is the primary identifier > of this bundle of definitions but it was decided that as and when there was > a change therein then the date would provide a unique identifier for a > particular version; nothing more is needed. Arguably the date is more > complex than is warranted but it has worked. Indeed that format is now > used and understood by such as IANA and the RFC Editor. > > +1 This would be a very disruptive change with little to no value. > If you want to record more detailed semantics of the relationships between > different versions, then put it somewhere else and leave the identifier > alone, let the identifier be an identifier and not be overloaded with > semantics. > > Tom Petch > > Andy > > > > > > > > 2) If we have both, what's the impact of having "#revision-label" on > implementations which search by date? > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On 2020-03-27, 5:44 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" < > netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > Hi, > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/50 > > 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 > > We agree that there is an impact on searching by date. We put this in > to have the ability to search by revision-label, otherwise we can search > just by date for a module which uses revision-label. > We had also discussed using different limiter for the label and have > something along the lines of: > module-or-submodule-name['@'date]['#'revision-label].yang > It'd seem that updating 7950 would be a good idea whichever way we go. > > 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 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 >
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename Jan Lindblad
- Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename Reshad Rahman (rrahman)