[As an individual contributor]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> Sent: 02 April 2020 17:52
> To: a...@yumaworks.com
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org; italo.b...@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
>
> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
<snipped>
>
> I think it quite clear that such a label should not be used in I-Ds.
[RW]
Currently, it takes IETF a long time to publish YANG modules. If IETF decides
to use Semver labels for YANG modules then I think that giving a pre-release
version label to work in progress is helpful for folks who choose to implement
pre-release versions of those modules while they wait for the formal versions
to be standardized.
Regards,
Rob
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> >
> > bis-draft-02: 1.0.0+3
> >
> > [repeat NBC step bis-draft-02 10 times] 1.0.0+4 .. 1.0.0+13
> >
> > RFC-2: 2.0.0 (in general: 1.0.1 or 1.1.0 or 2.0.0)
> >
> > The BC vs. NBC distinction is not relevant for a work-in-progress.
> > We have seen many times in this WG where a NBC change was made and
> > then later undone. There is no value in tracking the module during
> > development.
> >
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:46 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
> > <rrah...@cisco.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From: *'Andy Bierman' <a...@yumaworks.com>
> > > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM
> > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>
> > > *Cc: *Italo Busi <italo.b...@huawei.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <
> > > jcla...@cisco.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
> > > <rrah...@cisco.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From: *Italo Busi <italo.b...@huawei.com>
> > > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM
> > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, 'Andy Bierman'
> > > < a...@yumaworks.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jcla...@cisco.com>
> > > *Cc: *NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > *Subject: *RE: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Reshad,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My doubt and, if I understand well also Andy’s question, is about
> > > the fact that before publishing an RFC-bis with e.g., 1.1.0, we will
> > > have a set of Internet-Drafts updating the RFC with 1.0.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What versions should be used in the YANG modules published in these
> > > Internet-Drafts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Think about the following scenario: -00 version provide BC changes
> > > to the RFC module but the -01 version provide NBC changes to what
> > > has been added in the -00 module (thus the -01 version is BC with
> > > the RFC 1.0.0 module but NBC with the -00 version module)
> > >
> > > <RR> So bis 00 would be 1.1.0 (BC with RFC module).
> > >
> > > Bis 01 should be updated according to its relationship to the RFC
> > > module (bis 00 doesn’t matter anymore), when RFC bis is published it
> > > won’t have the full history.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope I correctly understood your question.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This semver plan is not very intuitive and not sure it works.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-00
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > container the-container; version 0.1.0 OK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-01:
> > >
> > > container my-container; version 0.2.0; rules
> violated;
> > > NBC should force 1.0.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-02:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > container my-container { version 0.3.0; should be 1.1.0
> > >
> > > leaf my-leaf { type int32; }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > RFC-1:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > container my-container { version 1.0.0; should be 2.0.0
> > > according to NBC rules
> > >
> > > leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > bis-draft-00:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > container my-container { version 1.1.0; OK
> > >
> > > leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > > leaf another-leaf { type int32; }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > bis-draft-01:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > container my-container { diff against RFC-1:
> version
> > > 1.1.0 but already used; use 1.2.0?
> > >
> > > leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > > leaf another-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > bis-draft-02:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > container example-my-container { diff against RFC-
> 1:
> > > version 2.0.0 but use 1.3.0 instead?
> > >
> > > leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > > leaf another-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [repeat NBC step bis-draft-02 10 times.... now up to version 12.0.0
> > > or is it 1.13.0? something else?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > RFC-2: publish draft-12 as RFC-2: now change the label from 1.13.0
> to
> > > 2.0.0? or leave it 12.0.0?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IMO it is very confusing that the stated rules are so inconsistent
> > > and are violated so many ways.
> > >
> > > There should be no revision-label at all in Internet Drafts because
> > > these documents are unpublished.
> > >
> > > They should only be added to the RFC version.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The semver procedures are not intended to work for unpublished
> > > modules that are only
> > >
> > > meant for review, not for implementation. The revision-label
> > > provides only noise in Internet Drafts.
> > >
> > > <RR2> I think it’s useful to have a revision label in a draft
> > > because it indicates nature of changes (BC v/s NBC) compared to the
> > > previous published revision (RFC).
> > >
> > > But you are absolutely right that setting the version based on
> > > changes with the previous draft revision is useless and confusing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Reshad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Reshad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Italo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Italo Busi*
> > >
> > > Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer
> > >
> > > Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> > >
> > > Tel : +39 345 4721946
> > >
> > > Email : italo.b...@huawei.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information
> > > from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose
> > > address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein
> > > in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
> > > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than
> > > the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail
> > > in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and
> delete it!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrah...@cisco.com]
> > > *Sent:* mercoledì 1 aprile 2020 20:13
> > > *To:* Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <
> > > jcla...@cisco.com>
> > > *Cc:* NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From: *netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman'
> > > < a...@yumaworks.com>
> > > *Date: *Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 2:07 PM
> > > *To: *"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jcla...@cisco.com>
> > > *Cc: *NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> > > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> > > <jcla...@cisco.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I just want to confirm that all the proposed documentation
> > > > procedures using new extensions are limited in scope to published
> > > > modules only, and not applied to unpublished modules (terms defined
> in RFC 8407).
> > > >
> > > > IMO it would be harmful to module usability to assign
> > > > revision-labels or include revision-related extensions in
> > > > unpublished modules (e.g.,
> > > Internet Drafts).
> > > > Consider how cluttered and confusing the client-server modules
> > > > would be if the 50+ NBC changes and versions were tracked through
> all the I-Ds.
> > > >
> > > > For IETF modules, the first usage of the revision-label should be
> > > > in the initial RFC, and be set to 1.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > If the RFC is ever republished then one can expect to find an
> > > > updated revision-label and possibly extensions tracking NBC changes.
> > >
> > > The semver scheme allocates a major version of 0 for pre-releases
> > > where the BC/NBC rules do not apply. I agree that a first official
> > > RFC release should be 1.0.0 (from a semver revision-label
> > > standpoint). From a design team standpoint, I know we mentioned the
> > > 0 versioning early on, but I don’t think we spent much time talking
> about modules under development overall.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IMO it is confusing to ignore the semver rules for the special 0.x.y
> > > releases.
> > >
> > > There are many NBC changes made at this point which are treated as
> > > minor or patch changes.
> > >
> > > The procedure is really broken once you consider a WG developing any
> > > RFC-bis module.
> > >
> > > Now the major version is not 0 and all updates look like real
> releases.
> > >
> > > <RR> I don’t think that’s needed. Initial module in RFC has 1.0.0,
> > > module in (released) RFC-bis can go to 1.0.1, 1.1.0 or 2.0.0
> > > depending on the change.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Reshad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My take would align to yours that we wouldn’t clutter a module with
> > > development NBC tracking.
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
