On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 6:52 PM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel= 40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hello, > > While I fully agree with Jason’s comments, I would like to state both as > an Ericsson guy and as a 3GPP delegate that for us Key issue 2 (multiple > label schemes) is not important. The only important point is that it should > be settled fast and thus not delay the acceptance of the versioning RFCs. > I would like this email answered about this issue. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=about%20revision%20label There is no justification for more than 1 scheme and it does not work either. > Regards Balazs > Andy > > > *From:* netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jason Sterne > (Nokia) > *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 July, 2023 14:19 > *To:* netmod@ietf.org > *Subject:* [netmod] YANG Versioning: Key Issues #2 and #3 - revision > labels > > > > Hi all, > > > > The weekly call group thought it would be good to provide an advance look > at Key Issues #2 and #3 before the IETF117 NETMOD meeting. > > > > For now on the list let’s continue the focus on K1 but we’ll start in on > K2 & K3 (if there is time) at IETF117. > > > > Key Issue #2: Single v/s multiple revision label schemes > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Recap of revision-label-scheme: > > - Extension defined in YANG module versioning document. > > - Takes a mandatory parameter defining the scheme used, it is an > identity derived from revision-label-scheme-base > > - Extension MUST be used if there is a revision label statement in > the (sub)module > > - The YANG Semver document defines the scheme yang-semver > > (note – the current YANG revision date is not considered a revision label > / label scheme) > > > > - Example: > > rev:revision-label-scheme "yangver:yang-semver"; > > > > Pros of revision-label-scheme: > > - YANG Semver deemed too restrictive by some > > - This provides flexibility to e.g. have vendor specific schemes > which allow for infinite branching where the versions have no semantic > meaning > > - Consistent framework for adding other schemes > > > > Cons of revision-label-scheme > > - Flexibility comes with cost of added complexity, e.g. what if a > module changes from scheme A to scheme B > > - YANG Semver is sufficient for IETF and many vendors > > - If some entity wants their own scheme they could just do it > using their own separate extension (outside of any “framework”) > > > > Impact of removing revision-label-scheme > > - We would rename revision-label e.g. to yangsemver-label > > - If a vendor wants a new versioning scheme, a proprietary > extension would need to be added by that vendor (including augmentations of > yang library, packages, etc) > > - The current IETF documents would be simpler > > - Cost/effort to make the changes to the documents > > > > > > Key Issue #3: Why do we need YANG Semver (vs. SemVer 2.0.0)? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > SemVer 2.0.0: > > - Linear (no branching) > > - Simpler in construction > > o Major > > o Minor > > o Patch > > - 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.1.0, 2.0.0, … > > o If a new feature is needed in 1.0.1, a 1.2.0 would need to be minted > that incorporates the features of 1.1.0 > > - Widely liked by the industry, but only works well when updating > at the head (fine for open source, not acceptable for operators) > > > > YANG Semver: > > - Support for limited branching (maintenance of released code) > > - Supports SemVer 2.0.0 rules > > - MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH_MODIFIER > > o _compatible > > o _non_compatible > > > > Example: > > 1.0.0 > > | > > 1.0.1 -- 1.0.2_non_compatible > > | > > 1.1.0 > > | > > 2.0.0 > > A feature (or an NBC change can be backported) > > > > Why YANG Semver: > > - Given that module versioning allows branching, the labeling > scheme must also support branching > > - YANG Semver is a compromise between power and simplicity > > o Encourage “mostly” single track development with modifiers the > exception > > o Retains support for some updates to older versions > > - Sufficient for SDOs and vendors > > - Industry is familiar with Semver – tried to stay close to it > > > > Jason (he/him) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
