Subject: [netmod] closure on yang-09, sec 10, revision rules thread started 12/07

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:21:12 -0800

Hi,

IMO, it is important to state that as far as the standard
is concerned, a missing revision date is considered to
be the special case where there is no revision.
This is consistent with the XML namespace rules (xmlns="").

Therefore, any changes to a such a YANG module are
illegal changes according to sec. 10.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:30:41 +0100 (CET)

> illegal changes according to sec. 10.

I am not sure what change, if any, you are proposing.

/martin

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:52:08 -0800

> I am not sure what change, if any, you are proposing.

yang-09, sec. 10, para 2:

OLD:

   For any published change, a new "revision" statement (Section 7.1.9)
   SHOULD be included in front of the existing revision statements.
   Furthermore, any necessary changes MUST be applied to any meta data
   statements, including the "organization" and "contact" statements
   (Section 7.1.7, Section 7.1.8).

NEW:

   For any published change, a new "revision" statement (Section 7.1.9)
   MUST be included in front of the existing revision statements.
   ^^^^
   If there are no existing revision statements, then one MUST be
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   added to identify the new revision.   Furthermore, any necessary
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   changes MUST be applied to any meta data statements, including the
   "organization" and "contact" statements (Section 7.1.7, Section 7.1.8).

Note that 'published' only refers to new RFCs and new vendor module revisions.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:53:11 +0100 (CET)

>    If there are no existing revision statements, then one MUST be

Ok, fixed.

/martin