IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-24
review-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-24-artart-lc-blanchet-2026-02-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2026-03-03
Requested 2026-02-17
Authors Joe Clarke , Robert Wilton , Reshad Rahman , Balázs Lengyel , Jason Sterne , Benoît Claise
I-D last updated 2026-04-13 (Latest revision 2026-04-13)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -06 by Radek Krejčí (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -20 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -24 by Marc Blanchet (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -24 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -24 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -24 by Tony Li (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Marc Blanchet
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/GVSFECH5HXb2URmUyP7VZ7EO3_8
Reviewed revision 24 (document currently at 25)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-02-22
review-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-24-artart-lc-blanchet-2026-02-22-00
I've been assigned as artart reviewer for this draft. I've contributed to one
yang module draft with an experienced yang expert, so I consider myself a yang
tourist.

I did not find any issues in the draft. I just feel some complexity with all
the possible combinations of what a module version could be and how it will be
interpreted with the other related artefacts versions. It see this as roughly
versioning objects in a data model. Are we trying to cover every possible case,
while in 99% it will be only x.y.z with sometimes temporary tags? But as a yang
tourist, seeing this is -24, I guess it has been debated and is seen as needed.