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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 3E4D3129C46 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 OQD5DT0mVeqG for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64DEB129C3F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1892; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490342992; x=1491552592; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zMz0RYfWzEOFJNodP8bWPm7tb8TqsIhZv3++qJudxzI=; b=IAXWJ2OMVgjMUM7avRcN8d9B2jWRCvqZ1Fk4oV19PsE9JmRu51GW+8BZ C8BfBChptdpwwvZUOhbOC61csJ4TgFZ7UclE3jFLSmBawnFRHQ1kLhFV1 DOjLKBuZmXC47hkUTltMz1Fasn0G11IPka6Au7m1xgz5qheuIV6hliQWS k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,214,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="653489736"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Mar 2017 08:09:50 +0000
Received: from [10.61.254.180] ([10.61.254.180]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2O89oaV026947; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:09:50 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <02834066-3540-790e-bdda-abc5d90bfdac@cisco.com> <30B9FE1D-D8E8-4255-847B-DBAD1AA6E73D@juniper.net>
Cc: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <f536f12f-3afa-2501-12ff-15c8159c59e0@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:09:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30B9FE1D-D8E8-4255-847B-DBAD1AA6E73D@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/whlqt5oguMOXDsTPHi_UjhoiM0s>
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 08:09:54 -0000

On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 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.
That makes sense.
Any other views?

Regards, Benoit
>
> 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
>
>