Il 01/06/2022 18:46, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
Thank you, Mario. Let me review your feedback, and adjust the analysis 
accordingly. Probably, early next week. :)

Jasdip

No problem. Take your time. I appreciated your effort in summarizing the different approaches.

Really think it could be helpful to evaluate all of them carefully and choose one hopefully.

Mario

On 6/1/22, 12:33 PM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

     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

--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
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

Reply via email to