Re: [netmod] Joint WGLC on "semver" and "module-versioning" drafts

[Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 12:07:49PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> Whilst the chairs haven't closed this WGLC yet, I propose a YANG-next design team, asked to produce a limited-scope I-D they think best.  WG-objections of the form "my pet-issue isn't picked-up" should not be used to fail adoption (or, later, the WGLC).  Of course, objections to how the specific-issues picked-up were resolved are valid.  The goal being to most expediently (<1yr) forward the versioning work in a correct (contract-compliant) manner.  Support?
>

I believe the WG chairs should guide more actively here. Back in a
day, the IETF used WG charters to define the scope of work items and a
project to produce lets say YANG 1.2 would have been a WG charter
update. For the charter update, the WG chairs would organize a
discussion to agree on the scope of the work. While bureaucratic, I
believe it was useful to work this way since it helped to get
agreement on the scope of work.

If the goal is to produce YANG 1.2 which (i) integrates semantic
versioning into YANG and (ii) fixes known bugs in YANG 1.1 and (iii)
does not add any other new features, then having agreement on such a
statement will help to steer the process. Yes, we will still have to
sort out what is a bug fix and what is a new feature, but this is
easier if there is upfront guidance on the scope of the work.

And the second incredient is a dedicated team to work on such a
project, which ideally brings the major stakeholders together.

/js

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://constructor.university/>