Subject: [Netconf] namespace in ietf-netconf-monitoring

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:28:40 -0700

Hi,

This namespace stuff sure is confusing us...

monitoring-12, sec 2, para 1:

    A server that implements the data model defined
   in this document MUST advertise the capability URI
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-monitoring".

*** I think this is wrong ***

NEW:

    A server that implements the data model defined
    in this document MUST advertise the capability URI
    for the ietf-netconf-monitoring.yang module, as
    specified in [yang-spec].

monitoring-12, page 14 (current YANG namespace):

  namespace
  "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-monitoring:DRAFT-12";

monitoring-12: sec. 8 (IANA considerations):

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-monitoring
      Registrant Contact: The IESG.
      XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

    This document registers one YANG module in the YANG Module Names
    registry [RFC XXXX].

      name: ietf-netconf-monitoring
      namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-monitoring:rfcXXXX
      prefix: ns
      reference: rfcXXXX

So the XML namespace will change every time a new I-D or
RFC is published, right?  There will never be a server
that advertises the plain URI, as the 'MUST' in sec. 2 says.

Andy

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:14:32 +0200 (CEST)

>     specified in [yang-spec].

I agree, with:

s/ietf-netconf-monitoring.yang module/ietf-netconf-monitoring YANG module/

> that advertises the plain URI, as the 'MUST' in sec. 2 says.

The intention is of course to NOT change the URI everytime a new
revision is published (== a new rfc is published).  The :rfcXXXX
should be removed.

We have this guideline that the namespace in the YANG module should
have :DRAFT-xx suffix, but should this suffix be part of the IANA
considerations as well?  I assume it should?  With a note that says
that it should be removed?

/martin

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:32:38 +0200

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:14:32AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
 
> considerations as well?

I believe that we are simply collecting evidence that the guideline
does not work in practice, see my comments on this when I reviewed the
guidelines document. Guidelines like this only have a chance to work
if they get fully automated, as long as we rely on people to update
version information in N places when they post an ID, we will likely
only add noise. Lets kill that guideline.

/js 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:54:05 -0700

> only add noise. Lets kill that guideline.

I prefer to have a coherent plan for XML namespace usage
in place, and documented in the YANG usage guidelines spec.

I noticed draft -07 of ietf-yang-types still has the DRAFT-06 URI.

Just because all the modules that are in progress while
the usage guidelines are also a work-in-progress, it
doesn't mean we cannot follow our own guidelines.
It proves we are changing our minds about this guideline.

Clearly, we do not need to ever change the XML namespace URI
if we are relying on the module revision instead.

So let's get rid of :DRAFT-xx everywhere and get rid of :RFCXXXX
everywhere.

MODNAME=acme-foo
REVISION_DATE='2010-03-30'

BASE='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang'

YANGBASE=$(BASE):$(MODNAME)

YANG module:

  namespace $(YANGBASE);

NETCONF capability URI:

  $(YANGBASE)?module=$(MODNAME)&amp;revision=$(REVISION_DATE)

Also, why do we need to register the modules namespace URI twice?
Once in the IANA XML NS registry and once in the YANG module registry.

Andy