On Apr 2, 2020, at 12:01, Andy Bierman
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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3) The revision-label in an unpublished module has a special form which simply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.
I support this scheme. Rob raised it on the call today as well. Since YANG
semver is a superset of semver 2.0.0, these pre-release and build appendixes
will work and could be a way to handle bis drafts well.
Joe
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
