Re: [NGO] external module properties

[Jon Saperia <[e-mail]>]

 From an application perspective, I would like to see both Version and  
Namespace as a standard/required part of the modules.  I think the  
need for version is pretty obvious, Name space is an important  
discriminator for management applications.
/jon
On Apr 27, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 02:38:52PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>>
>>>> LAST-UPDATED and REVISION are optional in SMIv2.
>>>
>>> This is not correct. The SMIv2 does mandate a LAST-REVISION clause
>>> (see section 5 and 5.1 of RFC 2578).  The IETF guidelines in  
>>> addition
>>> mandate the presence of REVISION clauses and the LAST-UPDATED clause
>>> becomes redundant when you have REVISION clauses. That is why YANG
>>> only has revision statements.
>>
>> some modules like SNMPv2-TC have no MODULE-IDENTITY section
>
> The modules SNMPv2-SMI, SNMPv2-TC, SNMPv2-CONF defintion the language
> itself and are not proper MIB modules anyway. And in any case, a
> counter example would not invalidate what is written down in RFC 2578.
>
>>> The YANG language itself does not mandate the presence of one or  
>>> more
>>> revision statements. This is consistent with YANG's philosophy of
>>> mandating only those things that are essential for the language to
>>> function and leave other things to guidelines or applicability
>>> definitions.
>>
>> I think the NETMOD philosophy should consider the entire
>> network configuration problem, which includes properties like
>> module version.
>
> It does. There is a revision statement and all the other stuff needed
> for the entire network configuration problem.
>
>>> PS: If YANG were to support versioned imports, revision clauses
>>>    would have to be mandatory because without version information,
>>>    a compiler would not be able to resolve imports. Right now,
>>>    compilers can do the right thing without having revision
>>>    statements and hence they are optional.
>>
>> External entities (humans, applications) need to be able to  
>> distinguish
>> between multiple versions of the same module.  Why does a YANG module
>> need to include a 'namespace' clause?  Maybe some vendors want to
>> ignore namespaces.  IMO, it should not be optional to provide a  
>> version
>> identifier.  This is a separate issue from requiring the version  
>> identifier
>> to change under certain conditions.
>
> Namespace information is needed for parsers to work properly in case
> of identifier clashes. And I am sure the IETF will require that
> revision clauses are present in YANG modules. But this is not a
> technical requirement of the language itself; it is a usage guideline
> requirement. I believe this distinction is worthwhile to make.
>
> /js
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
>

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo