Hello,
While I fully agree with Jason's comments, I would like to state both as an
Ericsson guy and as a 3GPP delegate that for us Key issue 2 (multiple label
schemes) is not important. The only important point is that it should be
settled fast and thus not delay the acceptance of the versioning RFCs.
Regards Balazs
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jason Sterne (Nokia)
Sent: Wednesday, 19 July, 2023 14:19
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] YANG Versioning: Key Issues #2 and #3 - revision labels
Hi all,
The weekly call group thought it would be good to provide an advance look at
Key Issues #2 and #3 before the IETF117 NETMOD meeting.
For now on the list let's continue the focus on K1 but we'll start in on K2 &
K3 (if there is time) at IETF117.
Key Issue #2: Single v/s multiple revision label schemes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Recap of revision-label-scheme:
- Extension defined in YANG module versioning document.
- Takes a mandatory parameter defining the scheme used, it is an
identity derived from revision-label-scheme-base
- Extension MUST be used if there is a revision label statement in the
(sub)module
- The YANG Semver document defines the scheme yang-semver
(note - the current YANG revision date is not considered a revision label /
label scheme)
- Example:
rev:revision-label-scheme "yangver:yang-semver";
Pros of revision-label-scheme:
- YANG Semver deemed too restrictive by some
- This provides flexibility to e.g. have vendor specific schemes which
allow for infinite branching where the versions have no semantic meaning
- Consistent framework for adding other schemes
Cons of revision-label-scheme
- Flexibility comes with cost of added complexity, e.g. what if a module
changes from scheme A to scheme B
- YANG Semver is sufficient for IETF and many vendors
- If some entity wants their own scheme they could just do it using
their own separate extension (outside of any "framework")
Impact of removing revision-label-scheme
- We would rename revision-label e.g. to yangsemver-label
- If a vendor wants a new versioning scheme, a proprietary extension
would need to be added by that vendor (including augmentations of yang library,
packages, etc)
- The current IETF documents would be simpler
- Cost/effort to make the changes to the documents
Key Issue #3: Why do we need YANG Semver (vs. SemVer 2.0.0)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SemVer 2.0.0:
- Linear (no branching)
- Simpler in construction
o Major
o Minor
o Patch
- 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.1.0, 2.0.0, ...
o If a new feature is needed in 1.0.1, a 1.2.0 would need to be minted that
incorporates the features of 1.1.0
- Widely liked by the industry, but only works well when updating at the
head (fine for open source, not acceptable for operators)
YANG Semver:
- Support for limited branching (maintenance of released code)
- Supports SemVer 2.0.0 rules
- MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH_MODIFIER
o _compatible
o _non_compatible
Example:
1.0.0
|
1.0.1 -- 1.0.2_non_compatible
|
1.1.0
|
2.0.0
A feature (or an NBC change can be backported)
Why YANG Semver:
- Given that module versioning allows branching, the labeling scheme
must also support branching
- YANG Semver is a compromise between power and simplicity
o Encourage "mostly" single track development with modifiers the exception
o Retains support for some updates to older versions
- Sufficient for SDOs and vendors
- Industry is familiar with Semver - tried to stay close to it
Jason (he/him)
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
