On a related topic, I had thought that RFC 6020 Section 5.2 said that a file called <module-name>.yang should contain the latest revision, but it doesn’t actually say that (it says that if the file name includes a revision date then that is the latest revision date). Is there an expectation that <module-name>.yang should contain the latest available revision?
> On 16 Jul 2016, at 19:17, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: > > All, > > RFC 6020bis has no recommendation re use of import/include revision-date but > makes it clear that if it’s omitted then the revision that will be used is > undefined (I believe that pyang will parse all the revisions that it finds > and then use the most recent one). Perhaps that’s a recommendation by > implication? RFC 6087bis says that the import/include revision-date SHOULD be > used when groupings from the imported/included module/submodule are used. > > In discussing this today with people at the hackathon the general opinion was > that an omitted revision date means the latest available revision. This > matches the pyang behaviour and (I gather) matches the behaviour of most > implementations. > > In discussion I also said that I didn’t understand why the only groupings are > singled out for mention in RFC 6087. Why not types for example? > > So should the behaviour when revision-date is omitted be specified? And does > the recommendation for using revision-date need to be refined? > > Thanks, > William > > —— some musings ---- > > On the one hand, always referencing a specific revision is good because it > means that you know exactly what you are getting. But is it always good, > especially (perhaps) for low-level modules such ietf-yang-types, > ietf-inet-types and (especially?) iana-if-type? Perhaps it’s better to > reference low-level files such as these without revision numbers and trusting > to rigorous backwards compatibility? > > RFC 6020bis is (I think) silent on whether a later revision could remove > import/include revision dates but it’s pretty obvious that you could change > them to later revisions, so probably this is regarded as “plumbing” that > doesn’t need to be mentioned? _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
