On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:32:51PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > > > > If the goal is to produce YANG 1.2 which (i) integrates semantic > > versioning into YANG and (ii) fixes known bugs in YANG 1.1 and (iii) > > does not add any other new features, then having agreement on such a > > statement will help to steer the process. > > I hope that (i) doesn't happen. I think it is the proposed changes in > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning that require a new YANG > version. If this new YANG version allows for other versioning schemes > than revision-date, then we can keep the modified semver scheme > outside the core document. >
I consider the module update rules a part of a versioning model. The current update rules were written to support the current versioning model. If we want to support multiple versioning models, then we have to refactor the update rules out of the YANG language specification into separate versioning specifications, i.e., traditional YANG versioning and the new semver versioning. There are some language mechanisms (like the import statement), that have to be flexible enough to support multiple versioning schemes. Is it worth factoring the versioning model out of the language? I guess the opinions vary widely on this, depending on the dynamics of the software environment people are working in. /js -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
