I may be naive and not understand things correctly but an open ended set of versioning schemes scares me. I do not see how this leads to interoperability.
Perhaps all the versioning work should be experimental until we know what the winning solution is? First semver was the solution, then we got semver plus extensions, and now we move full speed ahead to support an open ended number of versioning schemes? /js (who probably should have kept silent) On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:42:04PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > Hi, > > There was a > discussion<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=%22Interpreting%20revision%20labels%20as%20YANG%20semantic%20version%20numbers%22> > on the need to have an extension which specifies which versioning scheme a > module is using. > > The authors have identified 2 options: > > 1. One extension statement with a parameter which specifies the scheme > being used. E.g. revision-label-schema(ietf-yang-semver), > revision-label-schema(sdoX-yang). We’d need the parameter to be registered > with IANA. > 2. One extension statement per revision-scheme. E.g. > revision-label-scheme-ietf-yang-semver, revision-label-scheme-sdoX-yang. > > The authors have a preference for option 1, we believe it makes things > simpler. We would like to hear from the WG if there’s any concerns, > suggestions etc. > > Regards, > Reshad. > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
