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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 01 April 2020 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C833A13EC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ra1XTO-xGCpZ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619BE3A153A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id a5so478638ybo.7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 10:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=2JJaGdwAjsrYsFZQQIXPsfP7qOOEFq7p96qn4BgeKnQ=; b=zlfkFNlFK3qMCmOl8+K9o+G3+gEjBE7o5hh/BhH51i2Z5c5wlYXU6a/ttfGaCbKfcx ZjmOyrSMzdTc/fpsoctbvM2CyPqx0Yzb96/R5+kYOCXZVcgeOTVjcV0BjatxbV48/q+x cxJM6dQoaHfG9JtS6067+aa3GpJPyTeT9KAuEtCipTjlRRXrADCsOHW+M5dWRW7YFMxX IfUniKIzboAaJoSo25xsQCQKdMXfJJSW5gSvkAC+GUVBxfOE3XlDfYR/WPFLqTllqpZd PHFdilAWRET99XgSvgmHMchTPYlQkpHJvzihLiok5XoueevFYyIXvsG28yyYNert2Mzi TYoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=2JJaGdwAjsrYsFZQQIXPsfP7qOOEFq7p96qn4BgeKnQ=; b=ufoyhOZYMcdlcKEqf9Di4iZJzXapHBwwxJ13BTiebWAgpNYH+2yd3MRbZrI5HO5QkC 5Zle7fnSMXhOyaljCeUcCVwkKqC/JNTAOHIaefIlB0TWDGsBA61C9YzUkyK/Y2Bfyg5W lscMWYfYT/XGfBSo0BRlcfxCfLFJBCLBqChqF4V8B3WsurXhiOK5k1sgj+Mf7V1uslkI wtGdGktHrjonMfQYUTDHZUnqrZrc8dVSbNSYjdp0mDZ8fUxl2pl/Y/paQAWvMGikZZVY W8SqrjA6iO50LaHLSBz8eQxJqiXKv9/l7dWWS/C0HQSslHPsZb/dFypOtCQr0Xq6biXn j+2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2HReWM1j3AVxoPpQ2mRkO1cqb1UqN0ECI5S8drpnW9oD/5Lis0 XLOazNbfi2Q3k/20YZo1QTc9YgLpgwr/l6V59YbrWJ7F
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvL8F+e11lrkYw1gtnziipN29TWxw0wT/BthLStVCjYj8q7t2uLfvamHO9SdbVYjNB510toY6rCz7juHVnrmQY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7c2:: with SMTP id 185mr18273343ybh.44.1585762125064; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 10:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:28:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQWssUucRvnsi8O8+GhCHb0-xS--swf3R4q-6P3Qfq0TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000029c06c05a23e0443"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/drLg30T9vgKGtE7tIKjgleQXexQ>
Subject: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 17:29:09 -0000

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.


Andy