Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 16:01 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 99C533A1722 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 WrWN3-1x-B8B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (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 3D32C3A171D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id 204so2417777ybw.5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+Z9XomfRvohtobcsZYSucAqHRwMJT+pCs23cm9TclgY=; b=MQEMd6e05P7GhX6TAKD0TqwEOUby4IIQM8hJo2hQ4NdaY9h+6DRl+CCb8HlIS0S/vC vEOpuGHJ7HgQsiqMkpv3JFKwR3iNigpZC3RMfgKN1zptOOd9dU2XaFWxvg3HLePKdJE0 UsUBs0fPhhQNAiOAJjcH2AQGoz5emIlDRkZfih1JfLSRDj3WV8cLLg/qfKKBWHEoFysQ CiLaAUEdgOJIdtukhs+osOGpeYsJ26sRW1mmdYR55kXtrZdSayW3x+JkTXE5/kBwvTL1 jhpnXt5FMcn5KexmtT5vBcQtXopjvkHzAR2HUdwk1cQi5WW04dvjCYnUZkqJaJ2CJM6S Pa7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+Z9XomfRvohtobcsZYSucAqHRwMJT+pCs23cm9TclgY=; b=uU8IpoojkEtc5mpKG2esnJJ6YiznCbqyQXPl1izxl4Ex205sidj61khCjYpzw4eJDJ kBt6L3DrME71KdYHLDxZLLSwyNN8On+ro9lk/rNUn+amJ0Q7ZK0t69DDV3qmjQa4TCMN ijeABAkYvviXAIeu7j0a+a3HfBnq6rzdCao0um59w5gjCY2TL89N9ODBj1ACbnXFX+ix 8WNbWhwgcoqzppGL0jHIapMY5qALk6udIV2mad7VbG7EhrPwWD9UhERlTPD0J6l2Znf4 Nf19bQFctd545/bz5Lwvy1nF4TXVyOerpSjN/ewBjYwy9Wk8A6JHZdaqRxGXpmrN8Z1E lKfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pua5zK1AVKC4H3ZwyG2bbYR5KTurJectzckE2dA2LgjrbLPtPVy+ m1Ie7cpSzqZQboanFgRCcs1m+N0xEKPNW0k1vzHZcQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJJcZkAk4MWl6FZTLDXh9LW7i4c3w2EXGOE8MmQ4DLBlZIX4OEMADmQi3nbx3t5wIuyBl9KIGKi52YcZf3ufhc=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d495:: with SMTP id m143mr6880437ybf.274.1585843303088; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 09:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABCOCHQWssUucRvnsi8O8+GhCHb0-xS--swf3R4q-6P3Qfq0TA@mail.gmail.com> <D63416FC-2C33-4015-BF23-51ABCD75A020@cisco.com> <CABCOCHSTnYJbB9ainkmCuBinjRZAi-wEWgQoFCrhs+m8NBAAYQ@mail.gmail.com> <50052092-0380-44C6-8AE0-1AB3C15C30B4@cisco.com> <b688d8372a1a49e8828c74b5366458c0@huawei.com> <1DE96CAC-43BC-4638-AE96-2E770CA7CE20@cisco.com> <CABCOCHRDKKmU1+BL_4RPkn4sMhjN8w20_5rHWOoBCm8PCTTi1Q@mail.gmail.com> <B9DDE091-36C7-4E83-B20C-352E3C111151@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B9DDE091-36C7-4E83-B20C-352E3C111151@cisco.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 09:01:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQYhqt3Zt80-BOvMh2yTpStMxXKYKQbq+mmEJMmHoMcLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000ca3e5c05a250eae7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rNutlxpHT9I9M3dceFIsBOPCxQ4>
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:01:57 -0000
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 bis-draft-01: 1.0.0+2 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) <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > *From: *'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com> > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> > *Cc: *Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" < > jclarke@cisco.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > *From: *Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, 'Andy Bierman' < > andy@yumaworks.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> > *Cc: *NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> > *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 : +39 345 4721946 > > Email : italo.busi@huawei.com > > > > 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:rrahman@cisco.com] > *Sent:* mercoledì 1 aprile 2020 20:13 > *To:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) < > jclarke@cisco.com> > *Cc:* NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) > > > > > > *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> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <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 > > > >
- [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Italo Busi
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Italo Busi
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Rob Wilton (rwilton)