Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" drafts
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Wed, 14 June 2023 10:00 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836C3C14CE22 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 03:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b="pLWTC267"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="Sc4EkoRf"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yd_4XGzXhSSb for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 03:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC195C14CF1B for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 03:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010E45C022D; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:00:13 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1686736812; x=1686823212; bh=8EO9SLR7K6KSUCVYZee/WTlgpAmxapgcCJp Eyr42Sm8=; b=pLWTC267OIw6zbYXoyclmbkVa22O6rv2yrKN/fkbiPIKk70502R C06GbYjlSP1xiaHeVsZ0HGEh0NkgmfJAJqfVNdtTP9bUeic9NL0QJsETtQoxvHYT CqX+zJ3mObbaz6WpD4wSBQEC+W0LtikQL5Ie1obRvcKRs4GFrxrj6bVH3NXjBQXD u/S7H6Ge1rkn3wy44+P3qXAKngKKCAR8kZL4KPBV2IZXzoIOnymaG2ks5czMj9eG SpGlyd/IUVtSIW6X+psJNUxnU/axKDlZVZh8cZ0MHqHkPelpXym/zLa0yn10zGzr khi1axKuXs9WpMaoDaMzTGxJRpYgRE0FaNA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1686736812; x=1686823212; bh=8EO9SLR7K6KSUCVYZee/WTlgpAmxapgcCJp Eyr42Sm8=; b=Sc4EkoRfmE6zFYjMtMw5hmT1symh8gAK1Q2Z/XTre0eooSp3oKa 0CzA85PJtpwwah7hH24EQJhNaqPDXj1JPdPhEBVYwa34lwAEmjBum33Ha8GaC7Rf 38ZxQIcPnHUVwadf2c/BPhmp+eOr7TL28Q8FnNgY+c3klxfCfoWZ1G0ymWLhTH+7 NvnFSMqqSzXOczwZbM5qEQ+h/zfFgqdeAG09p2d0YKAm+IBiMStFnXFhEmVj/2SP NnYIokIMG7qJrkqGjsWvOfN904qX0BlEJmiYpDI+7BW6YDJaPEGO1QlxkOi9bZ0L BYUCrZrXW++iaPSVsKoswcKR++qYYgbDW1g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:rI-JZCrXsbQLdWam8BzPeWvb6Kkb4LNUlghLajHa9o1U1DPuzeDATw> <xme:rI-JZAp1tsW6OW_nSCqxrsiHOSy-ar8GObSKQ8BkzQqehuH0wkDI1YnOENSTpPLWw 9Cz7XUifRD6vHfA4jI>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:rI-JZHMpb6SvD-JUdnUuLgZc2jYM1WvfoC-MvEl0qS9B7Bj1SNkOsDNLVK7ep2m_wZiZ9sqChNbLTZjkOqiEVRiM6FFyT7l3RQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrgedvtddgvdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkffvvefuhfgjfhfogggtgfesth gsredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdo ihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhfedvtdeifeffheduje dvieffheelgefggeeukedufffgkeegtdffleelgfetveenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhf rdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epmhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:rI-JZB5keRcTcXgfQJIT1VuMXI8anOU1XRA2MVTWR0_eOg77qDiJ-A> <xmx:rI-JZB5ZjpryIwI6jt-yKl8Am25WvoPE4nSN7aVS9lJFbDRgAKi1Qg> <xmx:rI-JZBiCO19r1Jgrjj_sYFo6PrOtI054lyJ_jfa5rxdY_mTLKE3wGA> <xmx:rI-JZOjh_s_uIeA-5m5nBMehYdOu35UqtqIHEWZCI4vtq2Rd24tn4g>
Feedback-ID: icc614784:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:00:10 +0200
Message-Id: <20230614.120010.1020118551669772566.id@4668.se>
To: rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4196D31C959323377AE83143B555A@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY5PR11MB41966AE860E22466F8037B6DB552A@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20230607.092201.152004661869529702.id@4668.se> <BY5PR11MB4196D31C959323377AE83143B555A@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9vpTGlYWncd--2e7_n5G_-XMNbQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" drafts
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:00:19 -0000
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund > > Sent: 07 June 2023 08:22 > > To: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" > > drafts > > > > Hi, > > > > But the two drafts go way beyond fixing the problem your three > > examples illustrate. > [Rob Wilton (rwilton)] > > The actual goals of this work (i.e., the set of drafts) is aiming to > address the requirements stated here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-07. > Although never taken to RFC, I believe was effectively last called and > achieved WG consensus for the NETMOD WG. Hopefully the chairs can > chime in and keep me honest if I'm wrong on this point. > > The shape/structure/content of the drafts is very similar to when > these documents were adopted in March 2020: > > Your comments on these document at adoption time are here > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/r5TD0NDNgUbtX9EHZfB5hJJctN8/). > From that email, it is clear that you didn't support the YANG Semver > scheme, but my reading is that you were broadly supportive of the YANG > module versioning draft. > > Here are your review comments of the YANG module versioning draft at > adoption time: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MTGomxcdyNOmB7mgsFhItLKNJgk/ > > Here is a thread where you are discussing supporting different > revision label schemes: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/cEBiZKUSk0n7BeFwdiyaejc_Tsg/ > > I appreciate that everyone has the right to change their mind at any > point, but as stated previously, I don't think that the shape of the > solution has really changed substantially since they were adopted. I'm not sure that I have changed my mind on this topic (but if I have I view that as a good thing; it means I'm open to new technical arguments ;-) I don't think I have ever said that this is important work. I can live with optional extension statements that indicate nbc changes, and even that another optional revision label scheme is used, but I do think it adds unnecessary complexity. I do not like "modified semver", and I see no reason why the current revision-date based scheme doesn't work for IETF modules. /martin > If the goal is to indicate that non-backwards > > compatible changes have occured, a single new extension statement > > could solve that. (As I probably have stated before, personally I > > don't think this is necessary). > > That is one goal. Another is to acknowledge that > non-backwards-compatible changes will occur, potentially even on > branches. Another is to align with the versioning scheme that is > being broadly used by the industry (but with extensions to support a > branched history). > > > > > Apart from the updates to RFC 7950 section 11, I am mostly concerned > > about the additional complexity the "pluggable" revision-label scheme > > brings. > [Rob Wilton (rwilton)] > > It feels like we are somewhat going in circles: > > 1.The original proposal was to embed regular Semver 2.0.0 for the > version numbers. > > 2. That scheme was extended to what is being labelled as "Yang Semver" > because regular Semver didn't support some level of branching that the > vendors require to support customers on older releases over a much > longer time period. Semver 2.0.0 works best when the updates are > always committed to the head of a linear sequence of versions, and if > a bug needs to be fixed in an older version then the user is forced to > migrate to the latest version. > > 3. If I recall correctly, you didn't like YANG Semver (and possibly > not even Semver), and if I also recall correctly from a conversation > then I think that it is because you envisaged more advanced branching > schemes and perhaps a version number scheme that follows branch > history (and hence cannot also contain semantic meaning). Based on > that feedback, and an in-person side meeting, we moved to a revision > label scheme, an nbc-marker, and standardizing a versioning scheme to > fit into the revision-label scheme separately. This was all in place > when these documents were adopted. > > Based on those who are or have participated in the weekly calls, I > also believe that the solution has reasonable industry support: > - Representatives from Cisco, Ericsson, Huawei, Juniper, Nokia have all > - participated in the calls at various stages. > - Other SDOs (3GPP at least, and ITU?) are waiting for this work. > - OpenConfig is using Semver and has been for years. I don't know if > - they will adopt IETF's particular solution, but I do think that we > - would at least be fairly aligned. > > I want to find a way that we can just get this work finished and > published so that the authors and WG can move on to other, hopefully > more interesting, stuff. > > Is the solution perfect? No, but engineering solutions never are. > > Is the solution good enough? I believe so, yes. > > Regards, > Rob > > // As an author and participant in this work for 5+ years. > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > I'm wondering whether we are in the realm of missing the bigger > > > picture here, or perfection being the enemy of good enough. > > > > > > My first example: > > > > > > The sedate WG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sedate/about/) has > > > recently been rechartered to respecify the meaning of the date string > > > in a non-backwards compatible way. Yes, this same date string format > > > that is very widely implemented and deployed. I originally had a > > > block on the new charter until it was pointed out that the IETF > > > specification was being updated because it was inconsistent with the > > > ISO time specification and inconsistent with how the date string was > > > actually being used by implementations. I.e., the specification is > > > being updated to reflect reality. I.e., fixing the specification in a > > > non-backwards compatible way ends up being pragmatically the right > > > thing to do (and this is entirely allowed by the IETF process). > > > > > > Ideally, the date-and-time typedef in YANG would also be updated to > > > match the update to the definition in RFC 3339 by SEDATE. But this is > > > clearly not compliant with section 11 of RFC 7950 (because the value > > > space of allowed values is being narrowed). The only available choice > > > would be to define a new date-and-time-2 typedef which modules could > > > then update to. Of course, you cannot update the existing leaves to > > > use the new date-and-time-2 typedef because that also violates section > > > 11. So, you end up with two datetime leaves everywhere the > > > date-and-time typedef is used, hopefully with one deprecated (and at > > > some point, obsoleted). Of course, defining the new datetime version > > > leaves could also break any loosely related modules that may have > > > xpath expressions dependent on that date-time leaf (that the updating > > > module author may not even know about) which would need to be updated > > > to depend on either of the leaves. I also don't think that RFC 7950 > > > is clear about whether deprecated leaves must be implemented by all > > > implementations or not, so realistically clients will need to handle > > > setting either (or perhaps in some cases, both) of the datetime > > > leaves, depending on implementation, probably with a different mix > > > across modules (in vast stages of being updated). What happens if > > > some instances of those datetime leaves are mandatory configuration > > > and become obsolete? Is a client required to set it or not, the > > > pragmatic answer being that again RFC 7950 is unclear and again this > > > will likely be implementation dependent. What about if some of those > > > datetime leaves are list keys? I believe that the only solution that > > > RFC 7950 allows for would be to duplicate the list, deprecating the > > > old one, again requiring updates to all augmenting modules, and > > > corresponding impact and churn on clients and servers. > > > > > > I suspect that OpenConfig may also have a date-and-time typedef. I > > > can be certain about how they would handle this same issue - they will > > > just update the definition. Some clients/servers may have minor > > > impacts when they update to a new version of the model, but the impact > > > and effort required is minimal, and I think several orders of > > > magnitude less then the potential resultant churn than would happen by > > > strictly following the RFC 7950 section 11 rules. > > > > > > Some may argue that I'm not being pragmatic, and that this could just > > > be handled as a bugfix, changing the existing type. This is one of > > > the key things that the YANG versioning is trying to accomplish and > > > allow. It isn't aiming to say that module designers have carte blanch > > > to change modules in non-backwards compatible ways. Instead, it is > > > saying that in some cases, the pragmatic solution is to knowingly > > > break the RFC 7950 rules and make a breaking change because that > > > causes less impact. Further, a key aim of the versioning work is that > > > it is much better to be explicit that a breaking change has occurred > > > such that a client can easily be warned of that change and take any > > > mitigation necessary - which in the datetime instance above, is quite > > > possibly that no mitigation is required at all. > > > > > > Finally, I will note that rfc-6691-bis contains a change to the > > > datetime definition that is not backwards compatible with the existing > > > definition because the semantics of the leaf are being redefined. > > > > > > > > > A somewhat similar second example: > > > > > > The YANGs IP address type handling of zone information is very similar > > > to my first issue, where OpenConfig came to the pragmatic conclusion > > > that (in their models) 100% of the use cases of IP addresses only use > > > the numeric form without zone identifiers, and hence when someone sees > > > the typedef ip_address, this is what they are thinking of, so they > > > just pragmatically updated their definition of ip_address type. > > > > > > Somewhat related to this, I will note that rfc-6691-bis contains a > > > change to the ipv4-address and ipv6-address regex definition that is > > > not backwards compatible with the existing definition (it narrows the > > > valuespace for zone-ids restricting it to ASCII letters and digits > > > whereas previously it allowed for any language letters or digit > > > characters). I believe that this change is not strictly compatible > > > with RFC 7950 section 11, but I still think that this is the > > > pragmatically right change to make without introducing a new set of IP > > > address types, despite the fact that it could hypothetically break > > > some clients/servers, and we have no way of knowing in advance if that > > > will happen. > > > > > > > > > A third consideration: > > > > > > Yesterday, Jeff and Mahesh presented in a NETMOD interim on their > > > learnings from trying to write the IETF BGP model. One of their > > > outcomes is that they think that some of the other models recently > > > standardized by the IETF don’t interoperate well with the BGP model > > > and will need to be revised. I've no idea whether those changes can > > > all be made cleanly in a backwards compatible way, but I suspect not. > > > Hence, my concern here is that the IETF doesn't really have a great > > > path to getting a viable set of YANG models that work together, > > > because just publishing modules working in isolation doesn't solve the > > > industry problems. > > > > > > Because lots of the IETF YANG models have been written without a lot > > > of implementation experience (chicken and egg problem), often my > > > people who know the protocols but are not experts on YANG, means that > > > we can be sure that there are likely to be many bugs and flaws in the > > > YANG module RFCs that will need to be fixed or improved. I would > > > expect that some of these cannot be pragmatically fixed in a backwards > > > compatible way. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > My interpretation of the recent last call review comments is the > > > suggestion that we pivot to find a fundamentally different solution or > > > approach to solving this problem as an RFC7950bis. I believe that > > > would be a mistake. > > > > > > In summary, a group of participants have been diligently working on > > > this problem space for 5+ years. > > > > > > We have had a design team working on this area, and that solution was > > > then adopted by the WG. The authors and interested individuals > > > working on this area has presented updated drafts and updates to the > > > work at every IETF meeting for the last, 4+ years. Feedback at the > > > various stages/reviews/etc has always been considered, the authors > > > meetings have always been open, and I don't believe that the solution > > > drafts being taken to WG LC are architecturally significantly > > > different from the direction agreed during WG adoption of the > > > documents, although I do think that the documents are much improved > > > based on the feedback received. > > > > > > I also appreciate that Juergen has always publicly stated that this > > > work should be done as an update to the YANG language, but my > > > recollection was that he was in the rough on this issue, i.e., during > > > WG adoption, and since, at least until this IETF WG LC review. > > > > > > Hence, my concern, as an AD, is that if, after 5 years, the WG now > > > wants to take a fundamentally different path to standardizing this > > > work then I have concerns that the NETMOD WG isn't really functioning > > > properly and cohesively as a WG, and I'm very concerned that we won't > > > find any viable way forward for this work. I doubt that it will be > > > possible to get any quick consensus by opening up RFC 7950. We may > > > also find that the individuals who have invested a significant amount > > > of time and effort on this work don't have the desire or energy to > > > start from scratch again, when they have a solution that is good > > > enough for their needs. > > > > > > If I understand correctly, the fundamental objection to the module > > > versioning draft is around the updates to section 11 of RFC 7950, > > > which effectively state that changes MUST be backwards compatible, > > > whereas this draft states SHOULD be backwards compatible, without a > > > change to the YANG version number. Is that correct? > > > > > > If the existing deployment and evolution of YANG modules among > > > vendors, OpenConfig, IETF, and other SDOs strictly followed the rules > > > in RFC 7950 then I would probably agree that an update from YANG 1.1 > > > to YANG 1.2 is needed. But I think that the reality is that tools > > > must handle non-backwards compatible changes frequently happening in > > > YANG 1.0 (OpenConfig) and YANG 1.1 YANG modules anyway. I.e., I don't > > > believe that the "YANG 1.1 no breaking change contract" is being > > > widely honoured anyway, and instead is being treated as a goal or > > > aspiration. What these documents attempt to do is to move YANG module > > > evolution from what we currently have now where clients don't have any > > > way of really knowing how a module has evolved and whether they are > > > impacted to one that they do, and as part of that process they are > > > aiming to update the YANG versioning rules to better reflect how is it > > > being deployed and used. > > > > > > Hence, as am author, I still of the opinion that the best pragmatic > > > path forward is to try and get these documents to a shape where they > > > achieve rough consensus and are acceptable to the WG to be published > > > now, in the short term, as a good enough solution. After that point, > > > then I think that it would be great for some folks to form an idea on > > > a what YANG 1.2/2.0 could look like, but I think that coupling these > > > goals together would be a mistake. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Rob > > > > > > // Who doesn't really know which hat he is wearing for this comment, > > > but is only trying to do the right thing for the wider industry ... > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jürgen > > Schönwälder > > > > Sent: 06 June 2023 06:07 > > > > To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> > > > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" > > > > drafts > > > > > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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
- [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Alex Huang Feng
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- [netmod] 答复: Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Fengchong (frank)
- [netmod] YANG filenames in module versioning Jason Sterne (Nokia)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] YANG filenames in module versioning Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jason Sterne (Nokia)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jason Sterne (Nokia)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-v… Kent Watsen