WG,
Based on the very good discussion on list and the opinions recorded on
the poll, the Chairs want to state that the WG has agreed to:
"OPTION 1. Publish an RFC based on
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning that updates both YANG 1.0 (RFC
6020) and YANG 1.1 (RFC 7950) to allow YANG mod
Mandatory to be used by module authors.
Tools can ignore them as you say.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jürgen Schönwälder
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:07 PM
> To: Jason Sterne (Nokia)
> Cc: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) ; Kent Watsen
> ; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG Ver
RFC 7950 is clear that extensions must be designed such that they can
be ignored by YANG parsers and tools.
If you use 'mandatory, are you talking about 'mandatory' in an RFC
8407 sense (and not in an YANG language sense)? The difference here is
between 'mandatory to use by module authors' versus
Hi guys,
I think we'll need to be concrete about exactly which parts/extensions in
Module Versioning we're talking about. And it will likely be a slightly
different debate/discussion for each one.
I think the top level rev:non-backwards-compatible extension (and it being
mandatory) is importan
+1
"Back to the minimal draft concept: I think opening up NBC changes as allowed
(as "SHOULD NOT") without also trying in the rev:non-backwards-compatible
marker as mandatory in the same draft would be a mistake and not move us
forward. An important part of the versioning work is to bring expli
Jan,
I am certainly not against documenting NBC changes. This can be done
using extension statements. Whether such extensions are defined in the
same document or not at the end is a procedural question.
That said, any extensions that go beyond something that can be safely
ignored (e.g., extension
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 02:20:04PM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> Hence my proposal is to reject this erratum, but perhaps Jürgen you can
> update your copy of rfc-6991bis to make these consistent please? And yes, I
> appreciate that I need to finish processing my AD review of your doc.
I was going to say something similar. We agreed on a set of requirements ahead
of the module versioning and other work that included a mechanism that would
indicate that an NBC change had been made. Simply allowing them without it
would more chaotic to consumers.
Joe
From: netmod on behalf
The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC7317, "A YANG Data Model for System Management".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6245
--
Status: Held for
Jürgen, WG,
I agree that a document that updates 7950 would be the preferred solution here,
rather than a bis or errata.
I'm quite attracted, however, by the idea to bundle the softening of 7950 with
the requirement to document any incompatibilities introduced. This way, we get
something usefu
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7951,
"JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7020
--
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Hi,
Looking at this erratum, I agree that it would be better that the module prefix
is used consistently for references to other types within the same module, but
the existing YANG is not wrong.
In YANG, I generally expect prefixes are used when referencing data nodes or
types in other importe
+1 Jason. From an IETF process pov, yes the most expedient thing to do is to
replace MUST with SHOULD. While this may be good for the IETF, it makes things
worse for consumers/clients of YANG models: it'd allow NBC changes without any
indication that NBC changes have been made!
Regards,Reshad.
Hi Jurgen & WG,
One thing that's clear to me: although the Key Issue #1 poll seems clear that
we don't need YANG 1.2 to continue this versioning work (subject to
confirmation from the chairs), more discussion is needed on the content of "the
first YANG Versioning RFC" that we want to publish (i
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-12.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF.
Title: YANG Semantic Versioning
Authors: Joe Clarke
Robert Wilton
Reshad Rahman
Balazs Lengyel
Jason Ster
15 matches
Mail list logo
