> -----Original Message-----
> From: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>
> Sent: 06 March 2020 14:23
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; 'netmod@ietf.org'
> <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: URGENT kind of - RE: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-
> netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>
> Sent: 2020. március 6., péntek 14:18
> To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>
> Subject: RE: URGENT kind of - RE: [netmod] WG Last Call:
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06
>
> Not a full WGLC review, but one comment that I have on this draft (which
> partly picks up a comment that Joe mentioned earlier regarding
> "yid-version").
>
>
> I think that we should probably avoid using the term "yid-version" because
> "yid" can be regarded as a racial slur, perhaps "file-format-version"
> would
> be safer?
> BALAZS: OK, changed to format-version. Shorter & In the future an instance
> data set could be transported over the wire without a file around it.
[RW]
Okay.
>
> But I also agree with Joe that I think that it would be better to tie this
> back to the revision-date of the YANG module rather than inventing another
> versioning scheme. Ideally, this would be a YANG Semver revision-label,
> but
> we don't want this draft to get delayed behind the versioning work.
> BALAZS: OK, go with date.
[RW]
Okay.
Thanks for accommodating,
Rob
>
> Subject to the outcome of the (so far remarkably quiet) YANG versioning
> drafts adoption call, perhaps this leaf could instead be defined as a
> string, which can only currently take the value "1.0.0", thus allowing it
> to
> be extended to adopt YANG revision labels and semver in future?
>
> Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
