IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] Packages review - parent vs previous

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 23 October 2019 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6EE120B4A for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=BPLJOrlP; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=GJnvUL5/
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SZFRQeU-IFjJ for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52D75120B06 for <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13594; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1571844997; x=1573054597; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=IeZTLbN5C9nEgHuesjAM5i15+xrV2gTNiw+mhvAhVNE=; b=BPLJOrlPKQPooOIdidKNOBy/kVlW0SuHbEQSB3Wwt2yFBmfqQE7sM7RM 4ETxRBqD9dvYeYkl1Ofa/PQa4Qz8yRt8rKyLzrgW+93S6piGYte1GCajq d4WyhuUdv1kYhReA7fHAcXKYdNCAu5w5FdDCzb8XVPIDXBnHQ9pGYOxfz 8=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:qW+wARVlOUxxF2WBJpSbH63yWBnV8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankgA8VGSFhj13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AzAAAMcrBd/51dJa1lGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYFpAwEBAQELAYEbLyknBWxXIAQLKgqHZAOKV06CEJMihGGBLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAoM0JDYHDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTcMhVABAQEBAxIbEwEBOA8CAQgRBAEBKAcyFAkIAQEEARIIGoMBgXlNAy4BAqdHAoE4iGGCJ4J+AQEFhQoYghcJgTYBjA4YgUA/gVeCHi4+hB4BKDSDDIIslTKYMAqCJJBFhHyCOy+HJI9AhDqJfJlHAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFZBC4qgS5wFYMnUBAUgwaBJwECgkmKU3SBKYxCASWBCwGBKQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,221,1569283200"; d="scan'208,217";a="356737795"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Oct 2019 15:36:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9NFaakZ008889 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:36:36 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:36:35 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:36:34 -0400
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:36:34 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LXlJv05dEku4zlDEDnT9blkze7pixuzjl8OL8LWmlmKGSMkdeOaQk3xsBF8Bc32qfqk8Jd7P6gi/vvoDg5xjxl9PV9C+f0hLKaBbUga8C36Sew38HHh/93Fu/hVIHINGzvaW0BUQi50xbs/k2d/iGQBlpb5+juwzT2NUJEyQltluyX/s6ZGt7Ea28d2DNHsJDjvv1kSEYzlsfrIUCM47EG0OZ+5nhsEQJ6Qno65FLrA+B7nQxPSUM/DOfJhS7tmAeH1/7IZNlZ+Ji5hkD6kw5qdhhop70GmP6hKKAh8D2nT/M+Rvl3ruSkVcOLpyDndqhgLqYuzBcqK7QnQH2RB8Ig==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=M2KmsS80aPU2lQ78m7GHztiYOc3pyTfgHVbci4gOMRc=; b=PLw//kcwIo3SfR5DZlM8xsVIz6Vko2IlPZ0pu6PaWRv0dsNs8NsrgstZ1F6CywIXxVURJDexUcIFy1QQMACV6QEZ1zQwgsAlyJRHe5CBunudlU2tqeMM6geO3Mv9+vDMM0XGMrPqhd90jcDFqJQ15kXMUanM42l0xprPCHgWT0miwyQrP/FmqVK+N03O31rztmInEucGugDTWCxE83abUGKFrICoKmSi030hfiTiOJLYSiPFOyibACsS51KpuCsQzkNvnu6EBT8mClrOeHgpLlOkyKnaUC/fuDPKnEoS5lveibZwXSaQ3NiXCiLBvbgOxkPHOuvhGxjDh0Qp34EkEg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=M2KmsS80aPU2lQ78m7GHztiYOc3pyTfgHVbci4gOMRc=; b=GJnvUL5/v/ndOpbKQUlW8Gi6091nvRncxGx7VgJGUKs/oJzaoVzBahBVnfX9WIkS5ZTROPHn8js6hVjI5zLn+YrMB2pzwrcFbF02JrUw01LjJR9sTgz/VobWCycKUUNA9LUl7dQT0yf5GyZmASgP9ejWgmydOOAsAhfR2ZP8kXw=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.209) by MN2PR11MB3709.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2387.20; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:36:33 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cca:41bd:b0bb:c549]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cca:41bd:b0bb:c549%2]) with mapi id 15.20.2347.030; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:36:33 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>, "netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org" <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Packages review - parent vs previous
Thread-Index: AdWFJ0ZTblMWYKiWR6uSzLeRsjGYQADB261QAAFCueAAYMHrIA==
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:36:32 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB43664AA339DCD4D537EFA620B56B0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <VI1PR07MB398167DB9402B420FC814B9D9B6D0@VI1PR07MB3981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR11MB43668B3A2959D3C2C5CEB141B5690@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <VI1PR07MB39814057C42FCB0D31D67BA49B690@VI1PR07MB3981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB39814057C42FCB0D31D67BA49B690@VI1PR07MB3981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.40]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 800f55a3-e3f7-48ae-5631-08d757cec83d
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3709:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3709F015F7AF161D7C7CB20FB56B0@MN2PR11MB3709.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 019919A9E4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(346002)(376002)(396003)(51444003)(199004)(189003)(2906002)(25786009)(66946007)(86362001)(7696005)(64756008)(76176011)(66476007)(66446008)(5660300002)(74316002)(99286004)(478600001)(66556008)(66066001)(52536014)(446003)(486006)(14454004)(6116002)(790700001)(110136005)(7736002)(3846002)(186003)(476003)(11346002)(53546011)(6506007)(71190400001)(71200400001)(76116006)(296002)(26005)(316002)(2501003)(102836004)(33656002)(9326002)(6246003)(14444005)(55016002)(6436002)(5024004)(256004)(229853002)(8936002)(6306002)(54896002)(236005)(9686003)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3709; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: llRgrft4AcRnbHB4COL1TBFxHweh0I93MFSdUjrmcvQ2WKivNLGeAv4tbyo6TysVPEfGfMvzKs1sgPhM21JI4xYh/IWrJYWZ3nX39wAhtRXgiI49VohUwkLghNTXUA01jwHVVHStf/ENzlzPCpKHxFWpy6SC1pId/ZcJ+YpefHEDTgfxwL1f+xWGEYBV9aYL5PzrCrXR6Gn1PenYR8VM8f08ntDavK/9YI75Z0HvBTIH8gXwvyXO267QtrNl0+xsoZbIj3ESx//w7dlZYqnJO3Wsx3BNyaewLC6n+3ekWJu2UCrmwHC0jMdCYYMQchMGnn/0nLN7zMUq7mlsjG2l2MeBr1gPPB9ambkO46gWpqIFZ8pfO6S4c3lnmNWbFYGd1feviR8gUkuJIe+td6NbmvrEHwUPZDXL62xwSrzI0MWGpAuw+ilRCMcKhJFR7t00
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB43664AA339DCD4D537EFA620B56B0MN2PR11MB4366namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 800f55a3-e3f7-48ae-5631-08d757cec83d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Oct 2019 15:36:32.7498 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: /4TJzdX7TJN9okfXC1UYTVquniIeTXeUg8ggQ0d0Y9m5NXuNQsefPgGnJxL4E4pvXWtWNprXUJMCbZLlqslWgA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3709
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.16, xch-rcd-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod-ver-dt/rZCp3piL5YfQJ1D0R6TxIEpx9IU>
Subject: Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] Packages review - parent vs previous
X-BeenThere: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NetMod WG YANG Model Versioning Design Team <netmod-ver-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod-ver-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:36:45 -0000

Hi Jason,

I think that "previous" implying chronological aspects are probably a good thing.  I.e. I think that it is reasonable to expect that version n n+1 is always created after version n.

We are definitely not precluding a version have more than 1 subsequent versions.  If they are using YANG semver  for the version numbers then the branching is naturally limited by what can be expressed in YANG semver, otherwise there is no limit to how much branching is allowed (as long as they all have unique version strings).

Thanks,
Rob


From: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
Sent: 21 October 2019 18:24
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Packages review - parent vs previous

Hi Rob,

I'm not too concerned with 'parent' vs 'previous' but intuitively I think of 'parent' as closer to the concept I have in my mind. 'previous' can start to imply some chronological aspects and also implies linear progressions. We definitely want to allow a parent to have at least 2 direct children (for branching).  I don't think we're precluding >2 either right?

But if you and others are more keen on 'previous' then I'm OK with it.

Jason

From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 12:51 PM
To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com<mailto:jason.sterne@nokia.com>>; netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Packages review - parent vs previous

Hi Jason,

I can't remember if this has been debated.  I think that parent version immediately makes me think of a tree of versions, but version lineage might also be fairly linear in many cases.

So, I'm happy to discuss this, but have a preference for 'previous-version', since it effectively just makes it a pointer (without regard to the structure).

Thanks,
Rob


From: Netmod-ver-dt <netmod-ver-dt-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-ver-dt-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 17 October 2019 21:13
To: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Packages review - parent vs previous

A minor thing I noticed is the use of 'previous'.

My preference is 'parent-version' rather than 'previous-version'. Was that already debated for the module versioning drafts?

Jason


From: Netmod-ver-dt <netmod-ver-dt-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-ver-dt-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 9:58 AM
To: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] YANG packages draft - now ready for review please

Hi,

I think that this document has had sufficient updates that it is ready for review.

The latest version is available at per the commit information above, or attached.

I appreciate that it is quite short notice, but if it is possible for folks to review and provide comments before Thursday's meeting that probably be helpful.

Thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email