Subject: Re: [netmod] URGENT kind of - RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06

From: Balázs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 14:22:42 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 2020. március 6., péntek 14:18
To: Balázs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: URGENT kind of - RE: [netmod] WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06

Not a full WGLC review, but one comment that I have on this draft (which
partly picks up a comment that Joe mentioned earlier regarding
"yid-version").

I think that we should probably avoid using the term "yid-version" because
"yid" can be regarded as a racial slur, perhaps "file-format-version" would
be safer?
BALAZS: OK, changed to format-version. Shorter & In the future an instance
data set could be transported over the wire without a file around it.

But I also agree with Joe that I think that it would be better to tie this
back to the revision-date of the YANG module rather than inventing another
versioning scheme.  Ideally, this would be a YANG Semver revision-label, but
we don't want this draft to get delayed behind the versioning work.
BALAZS: OK, go with date.

Subject to the outcome of the (so far remarkably quiet) YANG versioning
drafts adoption call, perhaps this leaf could instead be defined as a
string, which can only currently take the value "1.0.0", thus allowing it to
be extended to adopt YANG revision labels and semver in future?

Rob

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 14:48:52 +0000

> From: Balázs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 06 March 2020 14:23
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]'
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: URGENT kind of - RE: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-
> netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06
> 
[RW] 
Okay.

> BALAZS: OK, go with date.
[RW] 
Okay.

Thanks for accommodating,
Rob