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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Wed, 01 April 2020 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 9D1E33A15AB for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=ODhwLznf; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=FescZzIr
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 u9ztIPBnE7Au for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC58B3A15A7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11029; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585764835; x=1586974435; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=e4K2lYEfYOCGIsoB78VZ/5k8LGMcx1ycGyiRR5YqLd0=; b=ODhwLznfeiJ4PQ3VgHCoHQqYm+9wWgBeHTmhAMO9Z/hjDLJE/9376B6f KvwBiPCmgabeMNjywuJp5CoKCa94AU+pX+8zt+w066SEhEXDu0GytofHE mChDsAVkHD/Sr/U3UCmWHYRZNLpp30IyS8lwfFanaZG3Xvy78/uRMFvc9 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,332,1580774400"; d="scan'208,217";a="751711878"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Apr 2020 18:13:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 031IDUI2007408 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:13:30 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 13:13:29 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:13:28 -0400
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 13:13:28 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KZC8ARIJAmWzS8/aLU67x3RsoUaHd/pBxlgxD+5y71nizeQzpbSSWvyl/N1vU2uj+3F1/D6LVhEYPerrk1FnJrBM2zo+Td6tDp6rsTpQWyR9oefJShvZUlgo6jGPlEP0Sj8l3cOuftIO1jx9kXRRS+UvNo0FGC5hJrWDhxGY8dA3SgS3pCTVJ1ZtzdnOs9U8DGnjleCmA9XlO7j2PAqnjI5iB1XiNNFWNQHIxOgXD0OJXgP3VjATYVZT+3TP9YsrwJ5/W7e4coxFHAfBNM8LaHXktglyjsC/B6n0itRo8IYb81VnoTHjCMBE42zKPBaF+aZqMDJ1ezV4QlfXoHf6NQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e4K2lYEfYOCGIsoB78VZ/5k8LGMcx1ycGyiRR5YqLd0=; b=X0GWOot7ZevYRLlHCT+ADAoWr4JdptmztrijMSNdTpVvVrfyk2nr/rpTG5oYpkRaqZS4mB5UldMuc12Aq2CoIEk4FukDJRZufrQx4qWPLDHT3YMWALM56nfRG2C9UA9u+7zEu3JQMtluBirzPdLbECE9zcZFLvFTqxI+MPLDsjuDY4ANx18XFxf1MDkNpeQjK8smLRGkdOwEHjw+SZujOkHL3VCxuqhQB0LG6NWH5rLIRuAwYEtg9yb3gGBHnORSFE6ssBReeXTYZLinZOoLhLosZP5qNCa2gXgZVWZGkEXGXQYrN8B0y85StIRj5hW6dQM89SV4kJwX/SCGdlbDTA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e4K2lYEfYOCGIsoB78VZ/5k8LGMcx1ycGyiRR5YqLd0=; b=FescZzIrP81fyT6Ux/RHoKFC2Eg8fmO99q9ayBxlPohGwaKkqtyQH9SapxXgBUrbkrQ3iqWmsp0Gle99ZqtaPeGND8FCI58sebIkQvs1SplKQzmO9c3hGPk0rLyPip4ISCfwEeF9rR4IXOA1TwHZmA+OhD8S83UJAa3q90s6Wtg=
Received: from BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:404:101::12) by BN6PR11MB4177.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:83::31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.15; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:13:27 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d1f9:733e:e200:f972]) by BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d1f9:733e:e200:f972%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:13:27 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
CC: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
Thread-Index: AQHWCEsdhK7pv7UtbUSphpF+AjGnn6hkiBIAgAAIEID//76sAA==
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:13:26 +0000
Message-ID: <50052092-0380-44C6-8AE0-1AB3C15C30B4@cisco.com>
References: <CABCOCHQWssUucRvnsi8O8+GhCHb0-xS--swf3R4q-6P3Qfq0TA@mail.gmail.com> <D63416FC-2C33-4015-BF23-51ABCD75A020@cisco.com> <CABCOCHSTnYJbB9ainkmCuBinjRZAi-wEWgQoFCrhs+m8NBAAYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSTnYJbB9ainkmCuBinjRZAi-wEWgQoFCrhs+m8NBAAYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [70.31.50.95]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1dfebb84-7946-49bd-1eec-08d7d6685fe8
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB4177:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB4177C7EC7A5A9D90D8BBBA45ABC90@BN6PR11MB4177.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 03607C04F0
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB1748.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(316002)(2616005)(66574012)(6636002)(186003)(6512007)(76116006)(86362001)(91956017)(66476007)(81156014)(81166006)(2906002)(71200400001)(4326008)(6486002)(478600001)(110136005)(66446008)(66556008)(53546011)(6506007)(5660300002)(26005)(8676002)(64756008)(36756003)(33656002)(8936002)(66946007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 4r9aLDvbkK/IshBl3CzPMNw0Lg2tWQKepUyY5v2fi9/1quTWLxJTPi6TCVvY/kmDjXAhOrPgnK/apY75wI42WgjaeSRGGxzm0y/FTrD+LPZ4tins2nfLa/V/yb/M9VJIsL3pIjRSynlPtB7IICIwLTFKwNEM6SgvaPFoacT9ZTzvPDIS4AggpzTeUszYblkZ/aDFw7SzVTIiWKUcL/g0uTgtyGrvpGy8Niv8m+mJmDCfT4G5YkhVNDdsfpV69yZAh35mNNn24XKkucbXNxD5CfnvnScfQxCrkYaUjBc4VAmGyLXNgneoe5tU51GBDokdwvEAe/EYVJtTBBcW2APr4oLLu68wCSSMAIT38XJ8m6NMS4b/86k+4cPlwe6TZfuflvu51Tv6nefVgF9oJSn2HAn8aAFCd1dJNUMIGn8d/FLIe5rWNfrH6XwfgCR5WW2y
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: JzXcXoKuwwRVWmQWhu7QjibfB+FYnv9FGiqg3WHaPHywFsvG1Od5iRDPqMRuX0U2YUB66KZVqq8DRHnU/yOdjr1wgrPRzOF4kG/ay2GJvaUfe1+ul0uu0fvYkNIR2z+/JGKn3GsXb7YJTVBOSyPHxw==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_50052092038044C68AE01AB3C15C30B4ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1dfebb84-7946-49bd-1eec-08d7d6685fe8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Apr 2020 18:13:26.7476 (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: 3tv1gVgDq58GmUT9i/SllDSCYhgOpysafi9chxc/qBfr5ARY/8JPIYhbHizJXhV0O4xbKY0Y2Dey6ZRUq9W3sA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB4177
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nnkhxjvMHov2wEggv67cgJnXeC4>
Subject: Re: [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 18:13:58 -0000

From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 2:07 PM
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)



On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com<mailto:jclarke@cisco.com>> wrote:


> On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> 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