Re: [yang-doctors] reference in import statement

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,


> On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:53 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I agree that this is grounds for confusion. 
>> 
>> My preference would be that we NOT have a reference statement for
>> import, or a comment for that matter, unless the module is doing
>> import by revision. The text of the document is already required to
>> have normative references to whatever the module imports.
> 
> I think this would be quite unfortunate, even though I agree that it
> might be confusing to have the reference.  The problem with having
> the reference only in the main body is that modules are typically
> extracted from the RFCs and live their own life.  So all you have is a
> list of various imported modules, and it is not obvious where to find
> them.

Wasn’t the idea to not have the relationship between RFC number and a YANG model because of some of these very reasons, and move to IANA maintaining a copy of all version of the YANG models? If so, would it not make sense to refer to the IANA registry, rather than point to the RFC?

> 
> We added the "reference" statement to "import" for this very reason in
> YANG 1.1.
> 
> So maybe the best solution is the one suggested by Juergen initially:
> 
>    reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types
>                 (at the time of this writing)";
> 
> 
> Or maybe we declare that in fact this is not confusing (or at least it
> is not a major issue) - people are aware of the fact that documents
> evolve, and that there might be a more recent version available.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
>> 
>> Cheers.
>> 
>>> On Feb 15, 2018, at 12:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have just seen this pattern
>>> 
>>>  import ietf-inet-types {
>>>    prefix "inet";
>>>    reference "RFC 6991";
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> and I wonder how people understand this. From the way this import
>>> works, any (newer) version of ietf-inet-types is OK to use to resolve
>>> the import but I could see that this statement makes people believe
>>> they have to use the version of ietf-inet-types contained in RFC 6991
>>> (but then this should have been import by revision). I know that we
>>> had a common practice to have comments before this was possible, like
>>> 
>>>  import ietf-inet-types {             // RFC 6991
>>>    prefix "inet";
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> but then this was a comment, now the RFC numbers becomes part of the
>>> definition. Should we be concerned about this? Or should we suggest
>>> to be more clear about this, e.g.:
>>> 
>>>  import ietf-inet-types {
>>>    prefix "inet";
>>>    reference "RFC 6991 (at the time of this writing)";
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> /js
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yang-doctors mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> yang-doctors mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]