Hi Juergen, Section 5 in the link below attempts to explain how to manage this (but always happy for review of that text to help improve it).
The key is to always ensure there is a unique version for every revision that exists. In your example below it would go like this: I have RFCXXXX at version 1.0.0. I make some backwards compatible changes: 1.0.0 I then make a backwards incompatible change: 1.1.0-XXXXbis-dev1 Then I add more backwards compatible changes: 2.0.0-XXXXbis-dev2 Then I remove the backwards incompatible change: 1.1.0-XXXXbis-dev3 When the module is finally published as an RFC it would just be version 1.1.0 in this case. The main problems covered: - ensure all intermediate versions have a unique identifier (in case there are pre-release implementations, etc) - ensure the final version has the correct YANG Semver Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 11:41 AM > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] module-versioning should require any solution to > describe > labels for drafts > > I have RFCXXXX at version 1.0.0. I make some backwards compatible > changes. I then make a backwards incompatible change. Then I add more > backwards compatible changes. Then I remove the backwards incompatible > change. What are the resulting version numbers? > > Rhetoric question: How many IETF module authors will get this all done > correctly during module revision (and which problem does all of this > fix)? > > /js > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 03:24:33PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > In the latest working copy of the YANG Semver draft we added some text in > section 5 about how to select revision labels for modules that are under > development, or for RFCs that are churning (i.e. bis versions). > > > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/blob/master/yang-semver/draft- > ietf-netmod-yang-semver.txt > > > > I think we probably need to require that same information for any revision > label scheme. I'd suggest we put something along these lines into the module- > versioning draft: > > > > Any revision label scheme MUST describe how labels are selected for new > YANG modules that are under development, and how labels are selected for > modules in IETF RFCs that are being updated (e.g. a "bis" version is under > development). > > > > (should we drop the "in IETF RFCs" ? ) > > > > Jason > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
