Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver Title: YANG Semantic Versioning Reviewer: Ebben Aries Review result: Ready with Nits
2 modules in this draft: - [email protected] - [email protected] YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.6.1, yanglint 3.12.2) - No compiler errors or warnings Summary: Overall, no real issues I can see. YANG module content is straightforward with the more interesting bits encoded in the draft/process itself. Only a few comments/observations below. Draft: - Nit: Would it make sense to at least publish nodes that correspond to the revisions in the example model? - Nit: Any in flight drafts should be updated to reflect the new `ysv` prefix in use here (e.g. draft-ietf-netmod-yang-packages) - Nit: L#1039 (txt version) - s/define/defined/ - Regarding initial versions, I see reference to 0.0.1. Seeing as the initial version is backwards compatible additions from nothing and it is not a "patch" bug-fix, doc update, etc.. Should we rather advise 0.1.0 for initial development? (This is the initial OpenConfig publish approach as well) ref: https://semver.org/#how-should-i-deal-with-revisions-in-the-0yz-initial-development-phase YANG Modules: - Is there a reason that ysv:version is set to 0.20.0 in both modules? I suppose as this draft has progressed, I see a few iterations of this but will be normalized to 1.0.0 or 0.1.0 (or 0.1.1: see above comment) upon publish? - Nit: Line formatting/breaks for description statements could be cleaned up to align in both models - ietf-yang-semver: Should the encoding of the `extension version` argument that is in the subsequent typedef pattern statement be mentioned or referred here within the description? - Nit: ietf-yang-library-semver: I see there are 4 inline definitions of the same leaf for all augments, some w/ slight description differences. Collapse and generalize into a grouping or keep as-is? _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
