Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any solution to describe labels for drafts

["Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

Section 5 in the link below attempts to explain how to manage this (but always happy for review of that text to help improve it).

The key is to always ensure there is a unique version for every revision that exists.

In your example below it would go like this:

I have RFCXXXX at version 1.0.0. I make some backwards compatible changes:
1.0.0

I then make a backwards incompatible change:
1.1.0-XXXXbis-dev1

Then I add more backwards compatible changes:
2.0.0-XXXXbis-dev2

Then I remove the backwards incompatible change:
1.1.0-XXXXbis-dev3

When the module is finally published as an RFC it would just be version 1.1.0 in this case.

The main problems covered:
- ensure all intermediate versions have a unique identifier (in case there are pre-release implementations, etc)
- ensure the final version has the correct YANG Semver

Jason


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 11:41 AM
> To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any solution to describe
> labels for drafts
> 
> I have RFCXXXX at version 1.0.0. I make some backwards compatible
> changes. I then make a backwards incompatible change. Then I add more
> backwards compatible changes. Then I remove the backwards incompatible
> change. What are the resulting version numbers?
> 
> Rhetoric question: How many IETF module authors will get this all done
> correctly during module revision (and which problem does all of this
> fix)?
> 
> /js
> 
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 03:24:33PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > In the latest working copy of the YANG Semver draft we added some text in
> section 5 about how to select revision labels for modules that are under
> development, or for RFCs that are churning (i.e. bis versions).
> >
> > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/blob/master/yang-semver/draft-
> ietf-netmod-yang-semver.txt
> >
> > I think we probably need to require that same information for any revision
> label scheme. I'd suggest we put something along these lines into the module-
> versioning draft:
> >
> > Any revision label scheme MUST describe how labels are selected for new
> YANG modules that are under development, and how labels are selected for
> modules in IETF RFCs that are being updated (e.g. a "bis" version is under
> development).
> >
> > (should we drop the "in IETF RFCs" ? )
> >
> > Jason
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>