Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

On 2019. 03. 24. 21:05, Andy Bierman wrote: On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:39 AM Joel Jaeggli wrote:

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

*Date: *Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 9:59 PM > *To: *Kent Watsen > *Cc: *NetMod WG > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Hi Andy, > > > Andy

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

From: netmod on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' Date: Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 9:59 PM To: Kent Watsen Cc: NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kent Watsen mailto:kent%2bi...@watsen.net>> wrote: Hi Andy, > And

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > BTW, I do not support adoption of the requirements document at all. > > Can you say why? Is it a blanket statement about adopting requirements > drafts in general, or something specific to this

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Andy Bierman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:39 AM Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2019, at 12:07, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Thank you all for the good input on this thread. > > > > With the understanding that a 00 working group document is a starting > > point for

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi Andy, > Andy Bierman wrote: > > BTW, I do not support adoption of the requirements document at all. Can you say why? Is it a blanket statement about adopting requirements drafts in general, or something specific to this draft. Kent ___

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Please see inline, marked with [cue]. From: netmod on behalf of "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 12:55 PM To: Andy Bierman Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 Hi Andy, Thanks for the comments

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:39 AM Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 2019, at 12:07, Lou Berger wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you all for the good input on this thread. > > With the understanding that a 00 working group document is a starting > point for the working group rather than a document

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 12:07, Lou Berger wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you all for the good input on this thread. > > With the understanding that a 00 working group document is a starting point > for the working group rather than a document that is ready for last call - we > believe there is

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi, Thank you all for the good input on this thread. With the understanding that a 00 working group document is a starting point for the working group rather than a document that is ready for last call - we believe there is sufficient support to adopt this document as a starting point for

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

> This is much simpler because the REST APIs are like RPC operations in YANG -- > they do not interact with each other. > In fact, it is impossible in YANG to have the XPath/leafref cross-references > in 1 RPC access another RPC. > > It is easy to support many revisions of an RPC operation. >

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:24 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > > > I don't think the versioning data nodes is a good idea. > I have seen entire REST APIs be versioned, but not individual parameters > within the API. > > > FWIW, I have seen individual resources versioned within a REST API, in > lieu of a

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

> I don't think the versioning data nodes is a good idea. > I have seen entire REST APIs be versioned, but not individual parameters > within the API. FWIW, I have seen individual resources versioned within a REST API, in lieu of a version number in the beginning of the URL. The REST API

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi, On 2019-03-20, 2:12 PM, "netmod on behalf of Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote: Hi Martin, > > > I.e. you don't think that we should be using semantic versioning at > > all > > My objection is that I don't agree with the problem statement and I don't think

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi Martin, > -Original Message- > From: Martin Bjorklund > Sent: 20 March 2019 13:55 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Cc: kent+i...@watsen.net; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 > > "Rob Wilton (rw

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

lton (rwilton) Cc: Martin Bjorklund ; kent+i...@watsen.net; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:54 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Andy, Thanks for the comments. 1. Regular Semver 2.0.0

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Bjorklund > > Sent: 20 March 2019 07:30 > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > > Cc: kent+i...@watsen.net; netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] a

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

urn to the YANG models. > > > I don't think the versioning data nodes is a good idea. I have seen entire REST APIs be versioned, but not individual parameters within the API. How do you version the must/when/path references from other objects that point at the data node?

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi Martin, > -Original Message- > From: Martin Bjorklund > Sent: 20 March 2019 07:30 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Cc: kent+i...@watsen.net; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 > > Hi, > > "Rob Wilt

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

ed. Thanks, Rob Andy -Original Message- From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund Sent: 19 March 2019 15:12 To: kent+i...@watsen.net<mailto:kent%2bi...@watsen.net> Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

vision dates. /martin > > Thanks, > Rob > > > -Original Message- > From: netmod On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund > Sent: 19 March 2019 15:12 > To: kent+i...@watsen.net > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versio

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

current YANG versioning > schema using revision dates is working just fine, and no changes are needed. > > Thanks, > Rob > > Andy > > -Original Message- > From: netmod On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund > Sent: 19 March 2019 15:12 > To: kent+i...@watsen.net &

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

March 2019 15:12 To: kent+i...@watsen.net Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 Hi, I have read this document, and I do not think it should be adopted. I object to the idea that we should allow non-backwards-compatible changes to published YANG modules. The

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi, I have read this document, and I do not think it should be adopted. I object to the idea that we should allow non-backwards-compatible changes to published YANG modules. The draft motivates this idea with: we must recognize that many YANG modules are actually generated YANG modules

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

As contributor, I support adoption of this document by the WG. Regards, Reshad. From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 4:22 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 Seeing as how we all need to read

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

As a contributor, I support WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Rob From: netmod On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: 13 March 2019 20:22 To: netmod@ietf.org Subject: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 Seeing as how we all need to read this draft anyways, in preparation for our

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

On 3/13/19 16:22, Kent Watsen wrote: > Seeing as how we all need to read this draft anyways, in preparation for > our meeting in Prague, it seems like a good time for this poll.  Thusly, > this email begins a 1-week adoption poll for: > >    

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

I support the draft. (Contributor) regards Balazs On 2019. 03. 13. 21:22, Kent Watsen wrote: Seeing as how we all need to read this draft anyways, in preparation for our meeting in Prague, it seems like a good time for this poll.  

[netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Seeing as how we all need to read this draft anyways, in preparation for our meeting in Prague, it seems like a good time for this poll. Thusly, this email begins a 1-week adoption poll for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-02