Re: [NGO] external module properties

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Sun, 27 April 2008 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ngo-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ngo-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ngo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3923A69F8; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34CF3A69F8 for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mFO3aDzRNywo for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp124.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (smtp124.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [69.147.64.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 16DC33A682B for <ngo@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 61292 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2008 10:19:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andybierman@att.net@67.126.241.42 with plain) by smtp124.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2008 10:19:55 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: NpYrKrQVM1kgFr.q_gGbgQOiVb61N8eZr_Esysjo35lP2ER4E4trOrB.sVMe2.h_5Dkvyw1GdP7xTJ0ONBu_rZceOAqRGUZOElcKNJ_agUWxghlRUPv1qHOobuZmmF75GwM-
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <48145349.2030602@andybierman.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:19:53 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>, NETCONF Goes On <ngo@ietf.org>
References: <48137444.6070802@andybierman.com> <20080426203103.GA22324@elstar.local> <4813A0EC.50209@andybierman.com> <20080427061550.GB22643@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20080427061550.GB22643@elstar.local>
Subject: Re: [NGO] external module properties
X-BeenThere: ngo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF Goes On - discussions on future work and extensions to NETCONF <ngo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ngo>
List-Post: <mailto:ngo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ngo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ngo-bounces@ietf.org

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.


no -- the prefix is needed for the language parser.
The namespace URI string isn't used anywhere in YANG.

> 
> /js
> 

Andy


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