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

"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> Mon, 22 June 2020 15:57 UTC

IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:IUxiRRxbRBEtrCjXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9psgjfdUf7+++4j5ZRePt/dkh1jDRsDG7fNahvDNsrzxH2ANst6Ns3EHJZpLURJNycAbhBcpD8PND0rnZOXrYCo3EIUnNhdl8ni3PFITFJP4YFvf8X+75jkYAVDiMwtrK/7uG5LDyci6hKi+/pTJaFBOgzywKbp5MBSxq1DXsc8b5OkqKqs4xhbT5HVSfOEDzmJzLlXVlBH5tco=
From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] module-versioning should require any solution to describe labels for drafts
Thread-Index: AdZIqTodlifsCupDS9O8VkBxipyRrQAAl3UAAACKI4A=
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:56:56 +0000
Message-ID: <EE50E9D0-BE7A-4609-A1E8-66F50EFE2A1C@cisco.com>
References: <DM5PR08MB2633618B426287D32C6D5D219B970@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20200622154128.rn5v2u4kci2icdga@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200622154128.rn5v2u4kci2icdga@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <46E1C5DDE381CF44BEA20B0A6EE9A9F5@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: eb878afb-76ce-40f2-3a08-08d816c4e3c0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jun 2020 15:56:56.1872 (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: tzdPo/PqPW5XhOfiB1W7acObdUjxdK+vw1Z2x9Fylw5GnTxTnLMZwTmaEJ2lG4FSp+4lPILbyw0rDbJ39bAquA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN8PR11MB3793
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/KeW6S60w6YicSWr7mA4UEgLf3FQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any solution to describe labels for drafts
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: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:57:26 -0000


> On Jun 22, 2020, at 11:41, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> 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?

If this is done in development, your version may look like 2.0.0-RFCXXXXbis-dev1 or 1.1.0-RFCXXXXbis-dev5 (depending on what your final intent is).  For in-development work, the only things the new text mandates are using the ‘-‘ pre-release notation and making sure any released module (i.e., one that appears in a rev of the I-D in Data Tracker) has a unique version number across its entire lifetime.  The rules of MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH do not strictly apply here since this is pre-release work.

> 
> Rhetoric question: How many IETF module authors will get this all done
> correctly during module revision (and which problem does all of this
> fix)?

The reason for the unique version even for development is so someone implementing or using this module knows exactly which module and version has been implemented.

Joe

> 
> /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
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] module-versioning should require any sol… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any… Juergen Schoenwaelder
Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any… Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any… Juergen Schoenwaelder
Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)