Hi,
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/45
o 7.1
The text says:
All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements for all
newly published YANG modules, and all newly published revisions of
existing YANG modules. The revision-label MUST take the form of a
YANG semantic version number [I-D.verdt-netmod-yang-semver].
I strongly disagree with this new rule. IETF modules use a linear
history, so there are no reasons to use "modified semver".
It is ok to use rev:nbc-changes if needed, though.
We believe some IETF models may not follow linear history, this was brought up
(I think) for IDR. Modified semver allows for non-linear history and also
doesn't preclude linear history. So even if we end up having no IETF modules
using branching, modified semver still works.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of rrahman=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Hi Martin,
We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick
off separate therads for each issue.
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aupdated-mod-rev-handling
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2020-03-10, 3:31 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mbj+i...@4668.se> wrote:
Hi,
Here are my review comments of
draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01.
o 3.1.1
o In statements that have any data definition statements as
substatements, those data definition substatements MAY be
reordered, as long as they do not change the ordering or any
"rpc"
"input" substatements.
I think this needs to capture that no descendant statements to
"input" can be reordered. Same for "output" (note, "input" and
"output" in both "rpc" and "action").
o 3.3
All revision labels that match the pattern for the "version"
typedef in the ietf-yang-semver YANG module MUST be interpreted as
YANG semantic version numbers.
I don't think this is a good idea. Seems like a layer violation.
What if my project use another dialect of semver, that wouldn't be
possible with this rule. I think this needs to be removed.
o 3.3
Submodules MUST NOT use revision label schemes that could be
confused
with the including module's revision label scheme.
Hmm, how do I ensure that this MUST NOT is handled correctly? What
exactly does "could be confused with" mean?
o 3.3
In the filename of a YANG module, where it takes the form: module-
or-submodule-name ['@' revision-label] ( '.yang' / '.yin' )
Should this section update 5.2 of RFC 7950? I know that 5.2 just
says "SHOULD". But existing tools implement this SHOULD, and they
need to be updated to handle this new convention.
But I wonder if this a good idea. It means that a tool that looks
for a module with a certain revision date cannot simply check the
filenames, but need to parse all available modules (wijust to find
the
o 3.4
leaf imperial-temperature {
type int64;
units "degrees Fahrenheit";
status deprecated {
rev:status-description
"Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
of their metric equivalents. Use metric-temperature
instead.";
}
description
"Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
}
I don't think rev:status-description is necessary / worth it. This
can easily be written with the normal description statement instead:
leaf imperial-temperature {
type int64;
units "degrees Fahrenheit";
status deprecated;
description
"Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
of their metric equivalents. Use metric-temperature
instead.
Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
}
o 3.5
The example modules should be legal YANG modules. Use e.g.
"urn:example:module" as namespace.
Also, the modules are missing the last "}", which confuses the
"rfcstrip" tool.
o 4.1.1
Alternatively, the first example could have used the revision label
"1.0.0" instead, which selects the same set of revisions/versions.
import example-module {
rev:revision-or-derived 1.0.0;
}
Shouldn't this be s/1.0.0/2.0.0/g ?
o 5
I think the module name "ietf-yl-revisions" should be changed to
"ietf-yang-library-revisions". "yl" is not a well-known acronym.
o 5.2.2
Wouldn't it be better if the leaf "deprecated-nodes-implemented" and
"obsolete-nodes-absent" were of type "boolean" rather than type
"empty"?
o 7.1
The text says:
All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements for all
newly published YANG modules, and all newly published revisions of
existing YANG modules. The revision-label MUST take the form of a
YANG semantic version number [I-D.verdt-netmod-yang-semver].
I strongly disagree with this new rule. IETF modules use a linear
history, so there are no reasons to use "modified semver".
It is ok to use rev:nbc-changes if needed, though.
o 7.1.1
There is a missing " in:
4. For status "obsolete", it is RECOMMENDED to keep the "status-
description" information, from when the node had status
"deprecated, which is still relevant.
HERE -----------^
o 8
s/CODE ENDS>/<CODE ENDS>/
o Both YANG modules
All extensions should specify the grammar; i.e., in which statements
they can be present and which substatements they can have.
/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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
