Early Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-20
review-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-20-yangdoctors-early-aries-2025-07-09-00

2 modules in this draft:
- ietf-yang-semver@2025-01-21.yang
- ietf-yang-library-semver@2025-01-21.yang

YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.6.1, yanglint 3.12.2)
- No compiler errors or warnings

Summary:

Overall, no real issues I can see.  YANG module content is straightforward
with the more interesting bits encoded in the draft/process itself.  Only a
few comments/observations below.

Draft:
- Nit: Would it make sense to at least publish nodes that correspond to the
  revisions in the example model?
- Nit: Any in flight drafts should be updated to reflect the new `ysv` prefix
  in use here (e.g. draft-ietf-netmod-yang-packages)
- Nit: L#1039 (txt version) - s/define/defined/
- Regarding initial versions, I see reference to 0.0.1.  Seeing as the initial
  version is backwards compatible additions from nothing and it is not a
  "patch" bug-fix, doc update, etc.. Should we rather advise 0.1.0 for initial
  development? (This is the initial OpenConfig publish approach as well)
  ref: https://semver.org/#how-should-i-deal-with-revisions-in-the-0yz-initial-development-phase

YANG Modules:
- Is there a reason that ysv:version is set to 0.20.0 in both modules?  I
  suppose as this draft has progressed, I see a few iterations of this but
  will be normalized to 1.0.0 or 0.1.0 (or 0.1.1: see above comment) upon
  publish?
- Nit: Line formatting/breaks for description statements could be cleaned up
  to align in both models
- ietf-yang-semver: Should the encoding of the `extension version` argument
  that is in the subsequent typedef pattern statement be mentioned or referred
  here within the description?
- Nit: ietf-yang-library-semver: I see there are 4 inline definitions of the
  same leaf for all augments, some w/ slight description differences.
  Collapse and generalize into a grouping or keep as-is?