Subject: [netmod] smi2yang-10: "reference" substatement for "revision" statements

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:35:58 +0200

RFC 6087 requires that every revision statement MUST has a reference
  statement. While this requirement makes sense for newly written
  modules, it does not make sense for modules derived from SMIv2
  modules where this information is usually provided in the
  description clause.

** Solution #10-01

   Declare that this is really a bug in RFC 6087 - the requirement
   should have been a SHOULD not a MUST to allow for SMIv2 derived
   modules that do not provide an explicit reference.

/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: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 12:03:51 +0200 (CEST)

>   modules where this information is usually provided in the

6087 says:

   This document defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track
   documents containing YANG [RFC6020] data models.

and:

   A revision statement MUST be present for each published version of
   the module.  The revision statement MUST have a reference
   substatement.  It MUST identify the published document that contains
   the module.  

So the only question is what should be done if a YANG module generated
from a MIB module gets published - should we manually modify the
revision statement or not.

/martin

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:07:56 +0200

> revision statement or not.

Lets postpone this discussion - and I believe a SHOULD in RFC 6087
would have been good enough.

/js