Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-label scheme

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 28 April 2020 16:19 UTC

IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:onbwGRfrmxAoop+4WeY7vpwylGMj4e+mNxMJ6pchl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwaSDdfZ4vlDgfGTrqbhR2Ea+pedoTYOfc8EWxwEjJAQmAotSI6ABFbgJfHnJyo9AIxZVVBj8n36VCodGMv3a1DI5HHn6zkUF0b9PAFyLP+wB4jTkcmtzOGu6tvfblYAiD+0e7gnKhKwoE3YvdUXho03LKE3x36r6ntFcuhb3yVmP1WWyh39/cy3upVk9ndd
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-label scheme
Thread-Index: AQHWHKpmiuFLvBMSf0iXx98pooGycKiOs0YA///B9wA=
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:19:40 +0000
Message-ID: <26B00393-1E65-41FB-8EC4-AD093E2F5C7B@cisco.com>
References: <6D4B643D-3264-4B00-A993-A140F5C54F30@cisco.com> <20200428160140.xzmqxf6c3u47ce7m@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200428160140.xzmqxf6c3u47ce7m@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5F816260CA9F554BA8A37C933ACD9B7C@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 344b640a-17f9-40a3-2e12-08d7eb8ff411
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Apr 2020 16:19:40.2552 (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: aY3u1kbhYzp4MQfOa2nyrjUl+QWLFTylgdsoFa5jKLHloNuWLM3voY4yaPX+zfta1DFUiGHyavyViJyU8ErOqw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB4148
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/_UyWyijuWkXpmj9OTXW7l3Mjmho>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-label scheme
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: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:19:48 -0000

The reason we're allowing for different versioning schemes is that no single versioning scheme has been unanimous.  The proposal is for IETF to use yang-semver. Some vendors and other publishers of YANG artifacts may use yang-semver, while some may define their own scheme.

While this in theory allows for an open ended number of versioning schemes, I don't believe this will be the case. No, I'm not taking over-under bets (

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2020-04-28, 12:02 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

    I may be naive and not understand things correctly but an open ended
    set of versioning schemes scares me. I do not see how this leads to
    interoperability.
    
    Perhaps all the versioning work should be experimental until we know
    what the winning solution is?
    
    First semver was the solution, then we got semver plus extensions,
    and now we move full speed ahead to support an open ended number of
    versioning schemes?
    
    /js (who probably should have kept silent)
    
    On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:42:04PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    > Hi,
    > 
    > There was a discussion<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=%22Interpreting%20revision%20labels%20as%20YANG%20semantic%20version%20numbers%22> on the need to have an extension which specifies which versioning scheme a module is using.
    > 
    > The authors have identified 2 options:
    > 
    >   1.  One extension statement with a parameter which specifies the scheme being used. E.g. revision-label-schema(ietf-yang-semver), revision-label-schema(sdoX-yang). We’d need the parameter to be registered with IANA.
    >   2.  One extension statement per revision-scheme. E.g. revision-label-scheme-ietf-yang-semver, revision-label-scheme-sdoX-yang.
    > 
    > The authors have  a preference for option 1, we believe it makes things simpler. We would like to hear from the WG if there’s any concerns, suggestions etc.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Reshad.
    
    > _______________________________________________
    > 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] yang-module-versioning: revision-label s… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-lab… Martin Björklund
Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-lab… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-lab… Juergen Schoenwaelder
Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-lab… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
[netmod] choice mandatory case mandatory tom petch
Re: [netmod] choice mandatory case mandatory Martin Björklund
Re: [netmod] choice mandatory case mandatory tom petch