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

"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> Wed, 01 April 2020 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@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 242C83A146B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 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, 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=jKVi3AtK; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=MMl0VaDX
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 41-MqIpuD97k for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76AF23A1486 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1860; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1585762784; x=1586972384; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Od867mjIPrk8E3aSuZPWVxpzUACJQHqOx3Bhi1n2DLg=; b=jKVi3AtKfKYsZ3p6WaNznjmvRfYSWto0ghLZ6nsJuzR/jsjwIN1cFBOv MTi69eW18cU8nV4rBN3vONqobTyEz8dSYxSleb8s8BjQYjcjDNFeelUs6 4fQd3qJs1KmbAIVoLDuln8f29RxFndL8kDS0r6EreRCkwayd8LiAfjG1S 8=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AyTg4fhUoz7eu5FxBBmj9oShHlCHV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtank4F8BLTlxo13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ANCACj0YRe/5ldJa1mHQEBAQkBEQU?= =?us-ascii?q?FAYF7gVRQBYFEIAQLKoQag0UDinCCOiWYHYJSA1QKAQEBDAEBLQIEAQGERAI?= =?us-ascii?q?XgiEkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVYMhXABAQEBAgESEREMAQE3AQQLAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?IGAICJgICAjAVEAIEDgUigwSCTAMOIAGkDQKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWCRYJiGII?= =?us-ascii?q?MCYEOKowxGoFBP4E4DBSCTT6EJREXAYMSMoIsjjeCTaAACoI9lyAdm3KoAIM?= =?us-ascii?q?1AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpIoFYcBVlAYJBPhIYDYs/gl6Dc4pVdIEpi0mCQwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,332,1580774400"; d="scan'208";a="465604596"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Apr 2020 17:39:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 031HddCH005693 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 17:39:39 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:39:39 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:39:39 -0500
Received: from NAM12-BN8-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 12:39:39 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=l4A8sT7gNl1h3WL0wSpmjA/jA1U2EtZS42ANWkyX0WF9LQyB6Yo5oTZU+taUhpTI40eLsJNpqwEEGrGI53nvqQVNqjHASRWqOKnnWuY9hKtLkhSMj+r5v2Wfl/u5Lgp9twwMahrTG6+yNsI+CdYehxx/E6z/rzhgZI0MH2E3lIVSXrsVJzKdzB5sa51q10nXL1kHRmUWAC+DE33m+KKwFSae+MJX41dOXmA3zRIMuY4H+XPwnO5/E8a4zkmS8gk+zRdo2Y45KAy0hJnEWvZcZVX5Sud8EQfWtg+PPfMr/CQ8c06aK/viqHDNTDPkP5Yvz/cDUPgndA5hTyuAJ6UExA==
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=Od867mjIPrk8E3aSuZPWVxpzUACJQHqOx3Bhi1n2DLg=; b=XNS2NYzVn3Iz8VTRzHDKMqirSi+Mdtc8A4Na+er9vbn7zhbLpB+48NF08i+r7QRrzJUxvhhe1qG76hLoXkdzZxea0lWs7iuKeeUlg8vCqvpJS5iE0DqLGhKnSKcb0VagRr2NXc/DA/N52zTyUmmr5unFeuzHtPsrcprVAh+zxxH0IiPCWYu4c8DePDhi5ZQChTmeDBoXseBvAxnBbPjet+N48pQJZuytrZ8Hlex5US4VMEEaKhHMGoSrmGz9gHFbKsuWQ1wHZiLV9gtPrP5BsuBJM1VPdMVycOiwKgtAR8TlxnTSS4at+K9vX9C3sMtxckAA3zZ9ZSWcEjm0DAJ3eA==
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=Od867mjIPrk8E3aSuZPWVxpzUACJQHqOx3Bhi1n2DLg=; b=MMl0VaDXtKcdDl/2/CTMEyyPdRahzhrNEUZdkaWksXEKd5bB+6qxFGyBpY2OAT3ispfbdzah7UrvX9WlF1aGb2jG/wctHA7oC7mFWXBgGoKQjQQ0xVLcvppE8rhAsxvvt6YS/jvzHo6ksv1YbX7dPhuw0GSjNdGF1hSNTtLnbmY=
Received: from BN6PR11MB1667.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:e::12) by BN6PR11MB0020.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:6b::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2835.22; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 17:38:20 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB1667.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9dc8:a67:89cd:a2d2]) by BN6PR11MB1667.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9dc8:a67:89cd:a2d2%12]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 17:38:18 +0000
From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)
Thread-Index: AQHWCEsdd6R2TKdx5EuH2TUi1UnWsqhkiBAA
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 17:38:18 +0000
Message-ID: <D63416FC-2C33-4015-BF23-51ABCD75A020@cisco.com>
References: <CABCOCHQWssUucRvnsi8O8+GhCHb0-xS--swf3R4q-6P3Qfq0TA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQWssUucRvnsi8O8+GhCHb0-xS--swf3R4q-6P3Qfq0TA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jclarke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2600:1700:b00:b239:1d21:23:aede:5510]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 41bb385b-4288-4d3e-2502-08d7d6637738
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB0020:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB0020E93569201EE38D8E2E38B8C90@BN6PR11MB0020.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 03607C04F0
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB1667.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(76116006)(5660300002)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(478600001)(2616005)(6916009)(8676002)(81156014)(8936002)(6486002)(81166006)(66446008)(33656002)(71200400001)(6512007)(86362001)(4326008)(2906002)(91956017)(36756003)(66946007)(6506007)(316002)(53546011)(186003)(66574012); 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: mVtGVv9g+mTN+1dk5Xnl2LH75LfvAMK520HhUpMQ66UpF0+dGSQx214fv4+WeH3q5BoLM/q95sF0N3fN/Xc23MlN4+a8xi1Afy+WQQzXvKFV6gVTsXDNv48wsNDcTItzZaITYhMiGkEPqBqcW9wguBv+fLB+6xfO8nN68atuOhCORO8X4wGAmQi7BssecmPZMULh+Gc0LCuyFXFBvMuts3P4ToD7kmfm5tGx8CZmz5jfRBVVOZlf45FgXy3gS63vhwXsz+79U7AgSgUbALCUYskO8PcH1eU3rS9l7q/s0NH3iWn6+PRIHFLtAzcl96XeIaHT8GdNvOfqTbPVJdQruowzlpHoP7aFANKKPKxjTorFrY2W1hNhEhs5QPAhvf1zbC1DGUsq7p5Xs0fh/HbjP2Ta+u952rnIHyr2Wh5CvxH7uDkxDjSDbOOcnIwL7GWP
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: O3BZJwZmiX47fQqZqdvpkxaOTzXxK53+xVbpJ3p9rzKpmTr/OTlKtgO7h9c0Oi759A6Dgfzrtb9anrADfX91MWLqe4Pk72ssOir/UFOI+HIxU+cylWV4VA9lhySmvT1SAfC899/NWXd604D8EpTn9/FnAHAv8f14K6pFgHy2Ry5zL3TcQnLM15BGlXe8hkyaYnkRawMH6LGmaiCW1LJZ4Q==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2E084619313FCF4DA066035B78FE2F50@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 41bb385b-4288-4d3e-2502-08d7d6637738
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Apr 2020 17:38:18.4499 (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: SbfyKNNMZo6n9zATIeI162POvb38z0cCgP5pYZqSx098r+WTcR+qPDeXpNNwEEXkb+QHcbWA4IEv/pWGrsCjag==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB0020
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/tXGc741LToEQlqomzrEcOdG_QXQ>
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 17:40:05 -0000


> 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.

My take would align to yours that we wouldn’t clutter a module with development NBC tracking.

Joe