Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-28 Thread t . petch 
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Bierman" 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 6:07 PM
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund 
wrote:
>
> > Robert Wilton  wrote:
> > > On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> > > >>
> > > >> The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> > > >> identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> > > >> [RFC7950].
> > > >>
> > > >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> > > >>
> > > >> 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).
> > > >>
> > > >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> > > >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> > > >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> > > >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> > > >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> > > >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> > > >>
> > > >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> > > >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> > > >> statement appears within the module.
> > > > That makes sense.
> > > > Any other views?
> > >
> > > I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> > > rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision
date?
> > > I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and
6187bis
> > > states what they should look like for IETF produced models.
> >
> > +1
>
> This is fine, but this there is a larger goal of library consistency
that is
> impacted by this guideline. (such as the github/YangModels/yang repo.
>
> 1) changing the filename for each revision is not git-friendly
> (if one wants to track changes over releases)
>
> 2) many revisions are actually obsolete work-in-progress
> so keeping every old file around will grow into a problem
>
> 3) almost every import is import-without-revision so compiling the
> old obsolete modules quickly breaks as the new work-in-progress
version
> makes incompatible changes.

Andy

In a quick trawl of 277 recently published IETF I-Ds with YANG modules
in them, I found 16 using import with revision.  Almost every?  Well,
nearly all.

Tom Petch

> However, import-by-revision breaks if you only keep the latest
revision
> around,
> so these problems have to be managed by the YANG librarians ;-)
>
>
>
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> Andy
>
>
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-26 Thread t . petch 
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Bierman" 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 6:07 PM


> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund 
wrote:
>
> > Robert Wilton  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > > >> Hi Benoit,
> > > >>
> > > >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> > > >>
> > > >> The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> > > >> identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> > > >> [RFC7950].
> > > >>
> > > >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> > > >>
> > > >> 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).
> > > >>
> > > >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> > > >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> > > >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> > > >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> > > >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> > > >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> > > >>
> > > >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> > > >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> > > >> statement appears within the module.
> > > > That makes sense.
> > > > Any other views?
> > >
> > > I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> > > rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision
date?
> > > I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and
6187bis
> > > states what they should look like for IETF produced models.
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> This is fine, but this there is a larger goal of library consistency
that is
> impacted by this guideline. (such as the github/YangModels/yang repo.
>
> 1) changing the filename for each revision is not git-friendly
> (if one wants to track changes over releases)
>
> 2) many revisions are actually obsolete work-in-progress
> so keeping every old file around will grow into a problem
>
> 3) almost every import is import-without-revision so compiling the
> old obsolete modules quickly breaks as the new work-in-progress
version
> makes incompatible changes.
>
> However, import-by-revision breaks if you only keep the latest
revision
> around,
> so these problems have to be managed by the YANG librarians ;-)

So a single revision level is too crude (for at least some of these
issues) and we need a major/minor release identifier, the minor being
updated with each version of a draft, the major being constant from the
time of  the first draft-ngt-xxxbis to its publication as an RFC.

Tom Petch





>
>
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> Andy
>
>
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-24 Thread Robert Wilton 



On 24/03/2017 17:07, Andy Bierman wrote:



On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund > wrote:


Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> Hi Benoit,
> >>
> >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> >>
> >> The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> >> identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> >> [RFC7950].
> >>
> >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>
> >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> >>
> >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> >> statement appears within the module.
> > That makes sense.
> > Any other views?
>
> I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision
date?
> I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and
6187bis
> states what they should look like for IETF produced models.

+1


This is fine, but this there is a larger goal of library consistency 
that is

impacted by this guideline. (such as the github/YangModels/yang repo.

1) changing the filename for each revision is not git-friendly
(if one wants to track changes over releases)
Perhaps this is a difference between a development version (maybe being 
worked on in a separate directory in git) vs a published version, and by 
published I mean any draft revision.




2) many revisions are actually obsolete work-in-progress
so keeping every old file around will grow into a problem
For the YANG models in RFCs, I guess that they are effectively published 
forever in github.
But for drafts, I think that they can could be removed from github at 
the point that there is no other current draft that references them, 
which should be scriptable.




3) almost every import is import-without-revision so compiling the
old obsolete modules quickly breaks as the new work-in-progress version
makes incompatible changes.

Yes.

Perhaps YANG is missing an "import with revision X or greater" (given 
that revisions are expected to be backwards compatible)?




However, import-by-revision breaks if you only keep the latest 
revision around,

so these problems have to be managed by the YANG librarians ;-)

I agree.






/martin


Andy

___
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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-24 Thread t . petch 
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Bjorklund" 
To: 
Cc: ; 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 1:44 PM


> Robert Wilton  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > >> Hi Benoit,
> > >>
> > >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> > >>
> > >> The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> > >> identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> > >> [RFC7950].
> > >>
> > >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> > >>
> > >> 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).
> > >>
> > >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> > >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> > >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> > >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> > >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> > >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> > >>
> > >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> > >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> > >> statement appears within the module.
> > > That makes sense.
> > > Any other views?
> >
> > I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> > rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision
date?
> > I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and
6187bis
> > states what they should look like for IETF produced models.

Yes, and I would also like RFC6087bis to require the date on the file
statement, if present, to match that on the revision statement - I have
seen several I-D where this has not been the case.  Something a tool
could check.

Should the date be the most recent revision statement?  I cannot see why
not.

Will there always be a revision statement?  RFC7950 says SHOULD,
cardinality 0..n so not always.

Tom Petch


> +1
>
>
> /martin
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-24 Thread Andy Bierman 
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund  wrote:

> Robert Wilton  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > >> Hi Benoit,
> > >>
> > >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> > >>
> > >> The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> > >> identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> > >> [RFC7950].
> > >>
> > >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> > >>
> > >> 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).
> > >>
> > >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> > >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> > >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> > >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> > >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> > >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> > >>
> > >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> > >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> > >> statement appears within the module.
> > > That makes sense.
> > > Any other views?
> >
> > I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> > rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision date?
> > I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and 6187bis
> > states what they should look like for IETF produced models.
>
> +1
>

This is fine, but this there is a larger goal of library consistency that is
impacted by this guideline. (such as the github/YangModels/yang repo.

1) changing the filename for each revision is not git-friendly
(if one wants to track changes over releases)

2) many revisions are actually obsolete work-in-progress
so keeping every old file around will grow into a problem

3) almost every import is import-without-revision so compiling the
old obsolete modules quickly breaks as the new work-in-progress version
makes incompatible changes.

However, import-by-revision breaks if you only keep the latest revision
around,
so these problems have to be managed by the YANG librarians ;-)



>
> /martin
>
>
Andy


> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-24 Thread Martin Bjorklund 
Robert Wilton  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> Hi Benoit,
> >>
> >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
> >>
> >> The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
> >> identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
> >> [RFC7950].
> >>
> >> While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>
> >> While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
> >> square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
> >> That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
> >> revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
> >> the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
> >> The RFC7950 text isn't clear.
> >>
> >> My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
> >> name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
> >> statement appears within the module.
> > That makes sense.
> > Any other views?
> 
> I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead
> rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision date?
> I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and 6187bis
> states what they should look like for IETF produced models.

+1


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-24 Thread Robert Wilton 



On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote:

On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:

Hi Benoit,

Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:

The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
[RFC7950].

While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:

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).

While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
The RFC7950 text isn't clear.

My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
statement appears within the module.

That makes sense.
Any other views?


I don't feel strongly, but would it make more sense if instead 
rfc6187bis stated that the file name SHOULD include the revision date?  
I.e. 7950 states what the filename is allowed to look like and 6187bis 
states what they should look like for IETF produced models.


Thanks,
Rob




Regards, Benoit


Kent // contributor


-ORIGINAL MESSAGE-

Dear all,

[Preparing the IETF hackathon]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2 


What is the guideline regarding:
   file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang"
  versus
   file "ietf-foo.yang"

Right now, we have a mix of behaviors.
This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the
revision, but not always.

Regards, Benoit

___
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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-24 Thread Benoit Claise 

On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:

Hi Benoit,

Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:

The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
[RFC7950].

While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:

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).

While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the
revision statement is optional within the module?  What is
the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
The RFC7950 text isn't clear.

My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file
name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision
statement appears within the module.

That makes sense.
Any other views?

Regards, Benoit


Kent // contributor


-ORIGINAL MESSAGE-

Dear all,

[Preparing the IETF hackathon]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2
What is the guideline regarding:
   file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang"
  versus
   file "ietf-foo.yang"

Right now, we have a mix of behaviors.
This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the
revision, but not always.

Regards, Benoit

___
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

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-23 Thread Kent Watsen 
Hi Benoit,

Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:

   The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string 
   identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of 
   [RFC7950].

While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:

   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).

While the SHOULD statements provide a recommendation, the
square-brackets "[]" impart no bias, and the text is ambiguous.
That is, is the revision-date optional *only* because the 
revision statement is optional within the module?  What is 
the recommendation for when the revision statement is present?
The RFC7950 text isn't clear.

My opinion is that RFC7950 errata should state that the file 
name SHOULD include the revision-date when the revision 
statement appears within the module.

Kent // contributor


-ORIGINAL MESSAGE-

Dear all,

[Preparing the IETF hackathon]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2
What is the guideline regarding:
  file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang"
 versus
  file "ietf-foo.yang"

Right now, we have a mix of behaviors.
This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the 
revision, but not always.

Regards, Benoit

___
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] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

2017-03-23 Thread Benoit Claise 

Dear all,

[Preparing the IETF hackathon]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis#section-4.2
What is the guideline regarding:
 file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang"
versus
 file "ietf-foo.yang"

Right now, we have a mix of behaviors.
This implies that the extracted YANG modules sometimes contains the 
revision, but not always.


Regards, Benoit

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod