On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM Martin Björklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy Bierman <[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 3) The revision-label in an unpublished module has a special form which 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 > > If this was normal semver, it would be: > > bis-draft-00: 2.0.0-1 > bis-draft-01: 2.0.0-2 > > etc. ("+" and "-" have special meaning in semver). > > One problem though is that when the -bis work starts, it might not be > clear if the end result (published RFC) will be NBC or BC. And this > might change back and forth during development of the I-D. > > What happens if there are multiple release trains in progress? Seems more useful to base the label on the known starting point instead of the possible ending point. I think it quite clear that such a label should not be used in I-Ds. > > > Agreed > /martin > > Andy > > > > > 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) < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *'Andy Bierman' <[email protected]> > > > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM > > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> > > > *Cc: *Italo Busi <[email protected]>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" < > > > [email protected]>, NetMod WG <[email protected]> > > > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Italo Busi <[email protected]> > > > *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM > > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]>, 'Andy Bierman' < > > > [email protected]>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[email protected]> > > > *Cc: *NetMod WG <[email protected]> > > > *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 : [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > 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:[email protected]] > > > *Sent:* mercoledì 1 aprile 2020 20:13 > > > *To:* Andy Bierman <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) < > > > [email protected]> > > > *Cc:* NetMod WG <[email protected]> > > > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' < > > > [email protected]> > > > *Date: *Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 2:07 PM > > > *To: *"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[email protected]> > > > *Cc: *NetMod WG <[email protected]> > > > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> 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 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
