On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:49 AM Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university> wrote:
> I strongly disagree. You can add additional file names, you can't > soften the existing SHOULD to a conditional SHOULD. > > +1 Getting tools to handle the file naming patterns defined in RFC 7950 took a long time. It would be disruptive to introduce yet another file-naming pattern. It would also be another NBC change forced on YANG 1.1 tools. > /js > > Andy > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 06:45:31PM +0000, Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote: > > Sure - I'd be OK with adding some wording here that makes it clear the > 7950 recommendation remains. > > > > i.e. you SHOULD use my-module@2023-01-06 as per 7950, but if you elect > to not use that format, and want to use a label in the filename, then this > format is RECOMMENDED: my-module#3.0.2.yang. > > > > I can see that 'primary identifier' isn't great. Maybe something more > like "to uniquely identify the version of the module" or similar. > > > > Jason > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 2:32 PM > > > To: Jason Sterne (Nokia) <jason.ste...@nokia.com> > > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Updated Content of Module Versioning - T7 > > > (Filename changes) > > > > > > > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when > clicking > > > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > > > information. > > > > > > > > > > > > It needs to be clear that the existing text in section 5.2 remains > > > untouched. > > > > > > YANG modules and submodules are typically stored in files, one > > > "module" or "submodule" statement per file. The name of the file > > > SHOULD be of the form: > > > > > > module-or-submodule-name ['@' revision-date] ( '.yang' / '.yin' ) > > > > > > "module-or-submodule-name" is the name of the module or submodule, > > > and the optional "revision-date" is the latest revision of the > module > > > or submodule, as defined by the "revision" statement (Section > 7.1.9). > > > > > > Words like 'primary identifier' confuse me. > > > > > > /js > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 06:22:57PM +0000, Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Starting a dedicated thread for T7 Filename changes. > > > > > > > > These are my own personal opinions (not those of the > > > authors/contributors). > > > > > > > > RFC7950 says that the filename format SHOULD be my-module@2023-01- > > > 06.yang<mailto:my-mod...@2023-01-06.yang> > > > > > > > > Module versioning currently says the following format is RECOMMENDED > > > (if the file has a revision label): my-module#3.1.2.yang > > > > > > > > I'd recommend we remove that from Module Versioning, but add it to > the > > > YANG Semver draft (where all revision label text will be located - it > is all > > > being removed from Module Versioning). > > > > > > > > We could potentially say it more like this: > > > > > > > > If a revision has an associated yang-semver-label, and if the > publisher > > > > wishes to use the label in the filename as the primary identifier > for the > > > > version of the module instead of the revision date, then it is > > > > RECOMMENDED to put the yang-semver-label into the filename as > > > follows: > > > > > > > > module-or-submodule-name ['#' yang-semver-label] ( '.yang' / > '.yin' ) > > > > > > > > E.g., acme-router-module#2.0.3.yang > > > > > > > > YANG module (or submodule) files may be identified using either the > > > > revision-date (as per [RFC8407] section 3.2) or the revision label. > > > > > > > > If we don't at least have a recommendation (*if* people really want > to put > > > the label in the filename), then we might have different organizations > using > > > different formats: > > > > > > > > * org #1: my-mod...@2.0.3.yang<mailto:my-mod...@2.0.3.yang> > > > > * org#2: my-module#2....@2023-01-06.yang<mailto:my- > > > module#2....@2023-01-06.yang> > > > > * org#3: my-module%2.0.3.yang > > > > * org#4: my-module(2.0.3).yang > > > > > > > > I'm trying to find wording that doesn't strongly mandate the my- > > > module#2.0.3.yang filename format, but does highly recommend it *if* > > > someone is going to put a label in the filename somewhere. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jason Sterne > > > (Nokia) > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:58 AM > > > > To: netmod@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [netmod] Updated Content of Module Versioning > > > > > > > > Hello NETMOD WG, > > > > > > > > The YANG versioning authors and weekly call group members have been > > > discussing the next steps for the versioning drafts. > > > > > > > > We'd propose that the first step is to converge on what aspects of > the > > > current Module Versioning draft should be retained, and which parts > should > > > be removed. We can then work towards a final call on an updated version > > > with this revised scope. > > > > > > > > Below is a summary of the main topics in the Module Versioning draft. > > > We've divided the items T1-T10 into 2 groups: > > > > A) Baseline content of Module Versioning > > > > B) Items which need more WG discussion > > > > > > > > In addition to whatever discussions happen on this email list, we > have also > > > created a hedgedoc where you can register your preference for items T7- > > > T10. It would be much appreciated if you can put your opinion in the > > > hedgedoc here: > > > > https://notes.ietf.org/CdKrT5kVSF6qbnRSY4KeSA?both > > > > > > > > > > > > GROUP A (Baseline content of Module Vesioning) > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Based on resolution of WG LC comments and subsequent discussions, and > > > some feedback to reduce complexity and content in the Module Versioning > > > draft, here is a summary of items that will and won't be part of the > next > > > update of the Module Versioning draft (also referred to as "this draft" > > > below). > > > > > > > > T1. The "ver:non-backwards-compatible" annotation (Sec 3.2): > > > > Retained. This top level (module level) extension (which can be > ignored by > > > tools that don't understand it) is critical to include so that module > readers > > > and tools can know when NBC changes have occurred. > > > > > > > > T2. Updated rules of what is NBC: (Sect 3.1.1, 3.1.2) > > > > Retained. These are updates/clarifications (i.e., changes) to the > RFC 7950 > > > rules that are appropriate and helpful: > > > > (i) "status obsolete" > > > > - This draft changes RFC 7950 so that marking a data node as > obsolete is > > > an NBC change because it can break clients. > > > > (ii) "extensions" > > > > - This draft changes the RFC 7950 rules to allow extensions to > define the > > > backwards compatibility considerations for the extension itself. The > existing > > > RFC 7950 rules only allow extensions to be added, not changed or > removed. > > > > (iii) "import by revision-date" > > > > - This draft changes the RFC 7950 rules to allow the revision date > of an > > > import-statement to be changed/added/removed. The imported module > > > must be versioned separately (i.e., by a YANG package/library defining > the > > > schema). > > > > (iv) "whitespace": > > > > - This draft clarifies the existing RFC 7950 behaviour that > changing > > > insignificant whitespace is classified as a backwards compatible change > > > > > > > > T3. revision-label-scheme extension (Sec 3.4.2) > > > > Removed. Based on WG LC discussions we will go back to a single > > > versioning scheme for YANG modules, and hence the revision-label-scheme > > > extension will be removed from this draft. > > > > > > > > T4. revision-label extension (Sec 3.4) > > > > Removed. Related to T3 above, given that a single versioning scheme > is > > > sufficient, the revision-label extension will be moved to the YANG > Semver > > > draft, and removed from Module Versioning. > > > > > > > > T5. Resolving ambiguous imports in YANG library (Sec 5.1) > > > > Removed. This will be removed from Module Versioning (could be > > > considered in YANG Next, although that is many years away). Note, RFC > > > 7950, section 5.6.5, paragraph 5 does consistently define how to build > the > > > schema. The change in the draft was to always prioritise an > implemented > > > module over the most recent implemented *or* import-only revision. But > > > this will be removed. > > > > > > > > T6. Advertisement for how deprecated & obsolete nodes are handled > (Sec > > > 5.2.2) > > > > Retained. This information is important for clients to be able to > accurately > > > construct the schema and hence it is retained in Module Versioning. > > > > > > > > GROUP B (Needs WG discussion) > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > For these items we don't have consensus within the WG - they need > more > > > discussion and input. > > > > > > > > It is recommended to go back and look at the NETMOD emails on these > > > topics (from the WG LC discussions). > > > > > > > > Please add your name beside your preferred option in the poll: > > > https://notes.ietf.org/CdKrT5kVSF6qbnRSY4KeSA?both > > > > > > > > T7. filename changes (Sec 3.4.1) > > > > The authors/contributors are leaning towards suggesting that this > moved > > > change be moved to YANG Next consideration. However, there isn't > > > complete consensus, with concerns that the vendors will each define > their > > > own incompatible file naming schemes for YANG modules that use version > > > numbers. If we retain this work then this would likely move to the > YANG > > > Semver draft. > > > > [See hedgedoc poll T7] > > > > > > > > T8. recommended-min for imports (Sec 4) > > > > The WG seems to be somewhat split on how urgent this is, and there > isn't > > > consensus amongst authors/contributors for retaining this work or > > > deferring it. One option is to keep it, but renamed as recommended-min- > > > date. > > > > [See hedgedoc poll T8] > > > > > > > > T9. Versioning of YANG instance data (Sec 6) > > > > There wasn't any consensus among the authors/contributors as to > > > whether this should be retained or deferred to a new version of the > YANG > > > instance data document. > > > > [See hedgedoc poll T9] > > > > > > > > T10. Do *all* whitespace changes (including whitespace between > > > statements) require a new revision to be published? Sec 3.1, last > paragraph. > > > > The authors/contributors are somewhat split on whether to retain > this. > > > The advantage of keeping this is that it makes it very easy to check > (i.e., via a > > > simple text diff tool) whether two modules pertaining to be the same > > > version are in fact the same. It should also mean that it is easy to > generate > > > a hash-based fingerprint of a module revision. The alternative gives > more > > > flexibility to users to reformat modules (e.g., for different > line-lengths), but > > > complicates the check to ensure that a YANG module revision hasn't been > > > changed or makes it slightly more expensive to generate a hash since > the > > > module formatting would need to be normalized first. > > > > [See hedgedoc poll T10] > > > > > > > > Jason (he/him) > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > -- > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
