Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
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 CD5AB3A1002 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 04:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=KKF1aDLo; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=J7xtELQB
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 hcGsT-_4ybFw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 04:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57F8F3A1000 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 04:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=75955; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585825904; x=1587035504; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ZvgMc0GDck95xSdR8aSGH1K674cwhwZXaY0xQ1lpH84=; b=KKF1aDLoERtT6G0TI2rdGsJUNh4JgmL8eYZNLA7AQfubrwQVU7fjcaoq OSjvNhx2zhDupOHHYvImbUJfhVBWnxosLBF50Fn8ynBznuXIXi9ro8yEx uT1AaYLjm4B3CqgV2xPw/OIRlMFM17zxNlcFBJYpW02yXIXM2JkPeSUWi Q=;
X-Files: image001.png : 38862
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AvHt99xWTlK1fdlh6U42i4vXpWPfV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankgBs1CUVZj13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AMAQBpx4Ve/5tdJa1mGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gSUvKScFbFggBAsqCoQRg0UDimyCOiWHSot?= =?us-ascii?q?zglWCDIFCgRADVAMHAQEBCQECAQEtAgQBAYREAheCKSQ4EwIDAQELAQEFAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEFBG2FVgyFcAEBAQECAQUBDBECCAESAQEwBwEECwIBCBEDAQEBAQUBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?fAwICAgUQAQ4MFAkIAgQBDQQBBggRA4MEAYJLAw4gAaQNAoE5iGJ1gTKCfwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBYU6GIIFBwmBOIMMhCqDXIEfGoFBPyaBEgwUgk0+hBkBCwcBCSYJCQwKAoJ?= =?us-ascii?q?aMoIsjW9JgkqFfYEqiQaFMIJzhzQKgj2GPgKQWx2CTIg1kHGNZoFDnBYCBAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EBQIOAQEFgWkiKj1wcBVlAYI+UBgNiz+CXgwXgQQBAoJJilV0gSmLW4EzAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?PAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,335,1580774400"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="457132169"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Apr 2020 11:11:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 032BBhx3018014 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:11:43 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 06:11:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 06:11:42 -0500
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 06:11:42 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=lAaJeG9GTfhUjWaVKN4otsGXbTosHWhVQC2GZV7rEAXNyTwC1yRU0hYPCOR53R7MLVNYAvdZo9LSUItz1qFR59WeBCBxBU/cebrIF29kcxlfjQo0vr3R4Qa7IdSPxGi0p5xpRv6Y+ERN2rFXDEE+GH+BjzH86tfLjdpqzy8L8S5XEbMvjpJFQuc+rhwz+CCUGq8FciEYG0dzkO06w9DAPeFDCC1RMidDAui5E5Sc9S6bwhFbHaINCXV8Ix0P5Jr6BneLXycIgxN5jJ2Za0yWGHHTFbDqFnvaN4L7rgw8uQZkwcUiRiJtYMbK5kKoN0PbR+2qXBRy4ksb3ESEVK6/sA==
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=iTarZCsxjlyccTNYulpVEVC9GFKUfZybh8oy2cxCtzw=; b=i9MSjcyu2xr/cGXtEQsJa72Wn1fzdgE6tT7lyGRCyTZES9EwcxQLT59YmmhStRPmHURhtjBfxKLl5SfymM9chzn7lqh5hiOvy3mr6EAwB2sE7/uAZXKVYS8s+qTeOWN/pEW1cbXpHaFaVFhPYg0PeegnB6oLASs+EBt2iNPQC0FfapbePTAppgaXeuL9bMMzbud9pwhiSXlwy97HgGcaYvwMHD52o4q2GbXwTOmwhw8hjY6XjsTSeACE37Wq9tQ0AsESpfE3JLok9nlfd61uJI5BQZw+RCQNlFx3jM8yMFQWcaxgNz4UAFXmDUbsJfmdED8lxkwqv9ib0kRqw/Fy9g==
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=iTarZCsxjlyccTNYulpVEVC9GFKUfZybh8oy2cxCtzw=; b=J7xtELQB/idxA5lZuCQDq5UFAtGlyRSOGxo0Dsjr5wLcfcVjeebGHBB3yn7QZzvDahmuggZXMzrf4t4+5Y6+Ip4QstdOp9jnYSoqGW0kubH3lYow2X6jlIne3iztprg/IQbh5y+cgXusUdFtsLkZ565x2LjpgckzhKtdwckGzYE=
Received: from BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:404:101::12) by BN6PR11MB1330.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:404:4a::9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.15; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:11:41 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d1f9:733e:e200:f972]) by BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d1f9:733e:e200:f972%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2878.016; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:11:41 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
CC: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
Thread-Index: AQHWCEsdhK7pv7UtbUSphpF+AjGnn6hkiBIAgAAIEID//76sAIABPIGA///gAQA=
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:11:40 +0000
Message-ID: <1DE96CAC-43BC-4638-AE96-2E770CA7CE20@cisco.com>
References: <CABCOCHQWssUucRvnsi8O8+GhCHb0-xS--swf3R4q-6P3Qfq0TA@mail.gmail.com> <D63416FC-2C33-4015-BF23-51ABCD75A020@cisco.com> <CABCOCHSTnYJbB9ainkmCuBinjRZAi-wEWgQoFCrhs+m8NBAAYQ@mail.gmail.com> <50052092-0380-44C6-8AE0-1AB3C15C30B4@cisco.com> <b688d8372a1a49e8828c74b5366458c0@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <b688d8372a1a49e8828c74b5366458c0@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [70.31.50.95]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c4b421c6-1d53-44e2-8436-08d7d6f69ef2
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB1330:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB1330F61A4D984982560662EDABC60@BN6PR11MB1330.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0361212EA8
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(136003)(66574012)(2906002)(26005)(316002)(6636002)(8936002)(81166006)(6506007)(53546011)(186003)(2616005)(4326008)(33656002)(71200400001)(76116006)(6486002)(91956017)(66476007)(6512007)(64756008)(66556008)(99936003)(66446008)(9326002)(66946007)(8676002)(66616009)(81156014)(36756003)(110136005)(86362001)(5660300002)(478600001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
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: qdQzdyyb3ml8yqmEvJ3K5F/3a3aiFeIssWla2gh6MrZlbQmdBCYYsDNSB07xQjB8ICKIgnCN0WZehu3GTQu0uOTG7UcK0RZaEdpZOBoHjZ3trHe6vQXRqr1evECO3P85l4WR6kD34ouC7OWu8z10mtBl6q+F5J6JZRMPOdcLZNXkoQxVLLtUqLokws3NVUZOl5ik7KBI0Wq9UNWl4gixXp59JVzIkbf+NFhGakaPlxs7dz/nEDa/aP+OZbnnDL9qZzK8Qv2SUi+V194XzPM9x7iMIEdxxKP9uCfy4EOadGqOvIWKFOoFLRLy61MXE1+27U6g/AuKL+6HrrHgMyPcfJuDnXZuJk68WiYAiS1GEVoMJ1WbxgjnRxDEtIejudTJCcAUzfQhhBtxWvTMarEh7NNcW/fGC7JOWqJws9LpSIdMBPQjxsemNnRZF1h04o4I
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 1E5DRBw4eh0FD/9ps6K8ejPnoUDUnjBp/qg6jAAv4IeukcUgNlspeIgeRHjFoHjaDaqYEF89lDMC2fw1xfXzzi7FiCXsdtgaznzGptFf/Hf4sx6L/+yiEu8YM4Sg+YphSgDKuIsHRzdyDHegbaVRVA==
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_1DE96CAC43BC4638AE962E770CA7CE20ciscocom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c4b421c6-1d53-44e2-8436-08d7d6f69ef2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Apr 2020 11:11:40.6989 (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: q3CFX63QGZk/a80XDZxafQSlxQ7oI9+CG1QPmVMLoi7gfhO4NEbMpnStAPtpyy2SCZeZ9yYShA8fyd2WOoN4TQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB1330
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/KKDb1Y-p5q74H7lPREiXRaojWQs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 11:11:47 -0000

Hi,

From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
Date: Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>om>, 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>om>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)

Reshad,

My doubt and, if I understand well also Andy’s question, is about the fact that before publishing an RFC-bis with e.g., 1.1.0, we will have a set of Internet-Drafts updating the RFC with 1.0.0

What versions should be used in the YANG modules published in these Internet-Drafts?

Think about the following scenario: -00 version provide BC changes to the RFC module but the -01 version provide NBC changes to what has been added in the -00 module (thus the -01 version is BC with the RFC 1.0.0 module but NBC with the -00 version module)
<RR> So bis 00 would be 1.1.0 (BC with RFC module).
Bis 01 should be updated according to its relationship to the RFC module (bis 00 doesn’t matter anymore), when RFC bis is published it won’t have the full history.

Hope I correctly understood your question.

Regards,
Reshad.

Thanks, Italo

Italo Busi
Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Tel : +39 345 4721946
Email : italo.busi@huawei.com
[cid:image001.png@01D608BD.F401D410]

This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com]
Sent: mercoledì 1 aprile 2020 20:13
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>om>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com>
Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)


From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 2:07 PM
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com<mailto:jclarke@cisco.com>>
Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)



On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com<mailto:jclarke@cisco.com>> wrote:


> On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just want to confirm that all the proposed documentation procedures
> using new extensions are limited in scope to published modules only,
> and not applied to unpublished modules (terms defined in RFC 8407).
>
> IMO it would be harmful to module usability to assign revision-labels or
> include revision-related extensions in unpublished modules (e.g., Internet Drafts).
> Consider how cluttered and confusing the client-server modules would be
> if the 50+ NBC changes and versions were tracked through all the I-Ds.
>
> For IETF modules, the first usage of the revision-label
> should be in the initial RFC, and be set to 1.0.0.
>
> If the RFC is ever republished then one can expect to find an updated
> revision-label and possibly extensions tracking NBC changes.

The semver scheme allocates a major version of 0 for pre-releases where the BC/NBC rules do not apply.  I agree that a first official RFC release should be 1.0.0 (from a semver revision-label standpoint).  From a design team standpoint, I know we mentioned the 0 versioning early on, but I don’t think we spent much time talking about modules under development overall.


IMO it is confusing to ignore the semver rules for the special 0.x.y releases.
There are many NBC changes made at this point which are treated as minor or patch changes.
The procedure is really broken once you consider a WG developing any RFC-bis module.
Now the major version is not 0 and all updates look like real releases.
<RR> I don’t think that’s needed. Initial module in RFC has 1.0.0, module in (released) RFC-bis can go to 1.0.1, 1.1.0 or 2.0.0 depending on the change.

Regards,
Reshad.

My take would align to yours that we wouldn’t clutter a module with development NBC tracking.

Joe

Andy