On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:03 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> This is the reason that, for me, I’d want the extension to be outside the > description in something that is machine-readable. Tools that do > understand this extension could make a better decision about which module > revision to use. > > > +1 The YANG author should know if their module depends on imported definitions from a specific revision. IMO the min-revision is needed in this case, and SHOULD be present. There is a big difference between "module will compile" and "module will work as intended". Tools that do not understand the extension will resolve the import as they > normally would, which may lead to a failure at compile time (e.g., for a > missing node). > This extension MUST be ignored if the 'revision-date' statement is present in the import-stmt. > > Joe > Andy > > > *From: *netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder > <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university> > *Date: *Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 14:45 > *To: *Jason Sterne (Nokia) <jason.ste...@nokia.com> > *Cc: *netmod@ietf.org <netmod@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] Updated Content of Module Versioning - T8 > (recommended-min for imports) > > I am strongly against this. The import statement is used by tools. > Adding a recommendation for humans that existing and conforming tools > will not understand just causes confusion. > > /js > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 06:41:19PM +0000, Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Starting a dedicated thread for T8 recommended-min for imports > > > > These are my own personal opinions (not those of the > authors/contributors). > > > > It has been discussed before that import by a specific revision is > somewhat broken (not recommended). It is mentioned in section 2.5 of the > versioning requirements draft: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-08.html#name-no-good-way-to-specify-whic > > > > Based on previous WG LC discussions, we already changed from a > revision-or-derived extension (that did affect conformance & what a tool > could/should use), to a weaker recommended-min in order to avoid further > changes to the YANG language & conformance rules. The recommended-min is > pretty much purely a documentation tag that helps users of the modules > understand what versions of imports might be best to use (e.g. when > supporting multiple modules in a server, or constructing a "package" of > modules that work together). > > > > We could instead just say to put this information into a description > field in the module. But it is helpful if the field is broken out (i.e. > structured data) and more easily machine readable. > > > > So I'd like to see this stay as part of Module Versioning but be renamed > to recommended-min-date. Then in YANG Semver we should add > recommended-min-semver-label. > > > > 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/> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
