Hi Jasdip,
I would suggest to add Approach C and split some scenarios into smaller
changes.
I mean, some of the scenarios presented merge breaking and non-breaking
changes.
I would classify the scenarios reflecting the basic breaking and
non-breaking changes as in the following.
Possible breaking changes that can occur in the RDAP context include:
Removing a response field
Modifying a path URI
Modifying a field name or type
Modifying a required query parameter
While non-breaking changes include:
Adding a path
Adding a response field
Adding an optional query parameter
Any combination of breaking changes should be treated as one
non-breaking change while any combination including at least one
breaking change should be treated as one breaking change (e.g.,
"Replacing jCard with JSCard" is equal to "Removing jCard " + "Adding
JSCard").
That being said, anyone can realize that Approach A (at least as is for
now) transforms the non-breaking changes in breaking ones. For example,
defining a new version of a request extension by adding an optional
query parameter to a given path implies that the path URI gets modified
(@Jasdip, this scenario corresponds to the second one presented in your
breakage analysis but limited only to the assumption "Query parameter q1
added"). Likewise, adding a new member to a response extension would
result in modifying the name of the response extension as well (@Jsdip,
this seems to me not included in your breakage analysis).
For that reasons, I wouldn't opt for Apporach A.
Cheers,
Mario
--
Dr. Mario Loffredoto a
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
