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

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

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)

Thanks, Italo

Italo Busi
Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Tel : [phone]
Email : [e-mail]
[cid:[e-mail]398C70]

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:[e-mail]]
Sent: mercoledì 1 aprile 2020 20:13
To: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: NetMod WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)


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



On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


> On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 and not applied to unpublished modules (terms defined in RFC 8407).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 include revision-related extensions in unpublished modules (e.g., Internet Drafts).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