[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [NGO] external module properties



Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:28:20 -0700, Andy Bierman <ietf at andybierman.com> said:
> 
> AB> YANG does not have a concept of a module version, which is a mistake.
> 
> I agree in general that information like this is needed.  Two thoughts
> though:
> 
> 1) Let's use an easily sortable version number (could be date based).
>    From a machine-readability point of view it's much easier to sort
>    through a bunch of revision files if the files are versioned in a way
>    that allows simple compare operators.  (as an example, this is the
>    reason that perl modules uploaded to the central CPAN repository are
>    supposed to use floating point numbers only (IE, 1.2 is legal but
>    1.2.3 isn't)).
> 

I believe 2 independent YANG implementations are deriving the version
from the most recent revision date.  In my code, the current date
will be used (for the internal version) if no revision clauses are
provided.

Obviously, the '1-release-per-day' limitation might be a problem
for some vendors, so full dateTime will be needed (yuch!)

The more we try to do with this string, the harder it will
be to standardize as 'mandatory'.

The first order problem I want to solve is a standard mechanism
for distinguishing between multiple versions of the same module.
The solution should not add any significant burden to implementors,
especially those which choose to use the 'default' version ID,
derived from the module or current date, etc.


> 2) How about we do the inverse of normal SMIv2 modules and optimize for
>    the reader...  Most of this type of meta information, which I do
>    agree is critical, isn't of huge interest to the average technical
>    reader (which 99% of the time are trying to get to the technical
>    cruft).  How about we put it at the bottom (or anywhere after the
>    real data definitions)?
> 

I suppose a long list of revision statements gets in the way,
but not 1 or 2.  I would like to reserve the 'bottom' for the granular
conformance specification that is missing from YANG.




Andy

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo