Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:37 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [replying to Reshad as well]
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> My impression is that Semver 2.0.0 works fine if you can always force
> clients to move to the latest version of the API whenever any bugfixes are
> made to the API (whether they are BC or NBC).  This is a natural fit for
> open source projects, but not so great for long life paid support contracts.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> The goal of YANG semver is not to facilitate release branching.  It is to
> allow vendors to fix YANG modules without forcing clients to update to the
> latest version of that YANG module (which may contain other unrelated NBC
> changes and have lots of dependencies on other modules).
>
>
> This is what Reshad was pointing to as well.  I’m very familiar with the
> issue, from my Juniper days, where there were all sorts of patch and (gasp)
> customer special releases, either of which could introduce any number of
> NBCs.
>
> The background, of course, is that [very important] customers have
> working/validated infrastructure running a specific release and simply
> cannot tolerate any change beyond the very specific one they need *NOW*
>
> I get it, truly,  but I feel that the ‘m’ / ‘M’ suffixes are both
> inconsistent with general understanding and insufficiently to express what
> is needed.
>
>

+1

I also find the granularity of NBC info to be mostly worthless at the
module level.
There is no difference between a 1 leaf bugfix and a complete rewrite of
the module.
Let's say 1 leaf "type string" needs to be changed to add "length 1..max".
This reduces the value set for 1 leaf by 1 value.

This flags the entire module as NBC and you would bump the major revision
number.
The entire premise that one can decide if it is safe to upgrade based on
the version string is flawed.


A possible fix might be to allow for <major>.<minor>.<patch>[-<anystring>],
> thereby enabling vendors to encode any format off a base release…and rely
> on inspection of the “revision” history indicate if/when NBC changes
> occurred.
>
> But then I question (again) the need for the simplified format at all, as
> opposed to just using revision dates.  For instance, if <anysting>
> represents a long history of NBCs, that they were based on some source
> M.m.p starts to lose relevance.
>
> Is the expectation that the vendor's module versions will use
> <major>.<minor>.<patch> values mimicking their release numbers?  For
> instance, would FooBar OS version 20.1.2 implement YANG module
> "foobar@20.1.2”?    I can see product mangers pushing for this, but then
> are companies (like Juniper) that use alternate release name-formatting
> strategies disadvantaged?  How is that fair?   To thwart this, would the WG
> be willing to assert that the history MUST start at 0.0.0 and MUST only
> monotonically increment values?
>
>
> Note that OpenConfig also hit this problem, but they proposed a different
> solution.  I.e. ship the base module with another module that contains
> deviations to fix any bugs in the base module.  Alas this completely
> decouples the real module history from any revision-date/version number
> contained in the module, since to really understand the version of the
> module you also need to know the set of associated patch modules containing
> any deviations to the base module.
>
>
> I’d need to see an illustration of this to be sure I understand, but my
> first impression is that it is yet another attempt to fit a square into a
> circle.
>
>

I don't have a solution proposal, but it would be great if a vendor could
issue a patch
to a standard module which says "this is the standard module plus these
known Errata ".
OK if this is in the form of deviations

In the end, I see no substitute to relying on “revision” history which 1)
> perfectly tracks branching history and can flag if/when NBC changes
> occurred.
>
>
Agreed


>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>

Andy