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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM Martin Björklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree that a revision-label could be useful in an I-D but not to
> indicate
> > NBC changes (because it doesn't).
> > The rules need to be clear and simple with no exceptions.
> >
> >  1) Special version 0.x.y contains NO NBC information
> >      Major version = 0 means the module has no published version
> >
> >  2) First published version is 1.0.0
> >
> >  3) The revision-label in an unpublished module has a special form which
> > simply identifies
> >       the source of the development and the iteration of the
> > work-in-progress.
> >       You can't really pick the next published label until the module is
> > ready.
> >
> > >From my example:
> >
> > draft-00:   0.1.0
> >
> > draft-01:   0.2.0
> >
> > draft-02:   0.3.0
> >
> > RFC-1:    1.0.0
> >
> > bis-draft-00:   1.0.0+1
>
> If this was normal semver, it would be:
>
> bis-draft-00:   2.0.0-1
> bis-draft-01:   2.0.0-2
>
> etc.  ("+" and "-" have special meaning in semver).
>
> One problem though is that when the -bis work starts, it might not be
> clear if the end result (published RFC) will be NBC or BC.  And this
> might change back and forth during development of the I-D.
>
>
What happens if there are multiple release trains in progress?
Seems more useful to base the label on the known starting point
instead of the possible ending point.


I think it quite clear that such a label should not be used in I-Ds.
>
>
>
Agreed



> /martin
>
>

Andy


>
> >
> > bis-draft-02:   1.0.0+3
> >
> > [repeat NBC step bis-draft-02 10 times]  1.0.0+4 .. 1.0.0+13
> >
> > RFC-2:  2.0.0   (in general: 1.0.1 or 1.1.0 or 2.0.0)
> >
> > The BC vs. NBC distinction is not relevant for a work-in-progress.
> > We have seen many times in this WG where a NBC change was made
> > and then later undone.  There is no value in tracking the module during
> > development.
> >
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:46 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From: *'Andy Bierman' <[e-mail]>
> > > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM
> > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
> > > *Cc: *Italo Busi <[e-mail]>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <
> > > [e-mail]>, NetMod WG <[e-mail]>
> > > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
> [e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From: *Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
> > > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM
> > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>, 'Andy Bierman' <
> > > [e-mail]>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>
> > > *Cc: *NetMod WG <[e-mail]>
> > > *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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This semver plan is not very intuitive and not sure it works.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-00
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    container the-container;             version 0.1.0      OK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-01:
> > >
> > >    container my-container;             version 0.2.0;   rules violated;
> > > NBC should force 1.0.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-02:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     container my-container {           version 0.3.0; should be 1.1.0
> > >
> > >         leaf my-leaf { type int32; }
> > >
> > >     }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > RFC-1:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     container my-container {           version 1.0.0;  should be 2.0.0
> > > according to NBC rules
> > >
> > >         leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > >     }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > bis-draft-00:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    container my-container {           version 1.1.0; OK
> > >
> > >         leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > >         leaf another-leaf { type int32; }
> > >
> > >     }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > bis-draft-01:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   container my-container {                  diff against RFC-1:
> version
> > > 1.1.0 but already used; use 1.2.0?
> > >
> > >         leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > >         leaf another-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > >     }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > bis-draft-02:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   container example-my-container {                  diff against RFC-1:
> > > version 2.0.0 but use 1.3.0 instead?
> > >
> > >         leaf my-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > >         leaf another-leaf { type uint32; }
> > >
> > >     }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [repeat NBC step bis-draft-02 10 times.... now up to version 12.0.0 or
> is
> > > it 1.13.0? something else?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > RFC-2:   publish draft-12 as RFC-2: now change the label from 1.13.0 to
> > > 2.0.0? or leave it 12.0.0?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IMO it is very confusing that the stated rules are so inconsistent and
> > > are violated so many ways.
> > >
> > > There should be no revision-label at all in Internet Drafts because
> these
> > > documents are unpublished.
> > >
> > > They should only be added to the RFC version.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The semver procedures are not intended to work for unpublished modules
> > > that are only
> > >
> > > meant for review, not for implementation. The revision-label provides
> only
> > > noise in Internet Drafts.
> > >
> > > <RR2> I think it’s useful to have a revision label in a draft because
> it
> > > indicates nature of changes (BC v/s NBC) compared to the previous
> published
> > > revision (RFC).
> > >
> > > But you are absolutely right that setting the version based on changes
> > > with the previous draft revision is useless and confusing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Reshad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Reshad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Italo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Italo Busi*
> > >
> > > Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer
> > >
> > > Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> > >
> > > Tel : [phone]
> > >
> > > Email : [e-mail]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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]> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' <
> > > [e-mail]>
> > > *Date: *Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 2:07 PM
> > > *To: *"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>
> > > *Cc: *NetMod WG <[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]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <[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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>