Create TEMP-LC-Key-Issues.txt

yang-module-versioning/TEMP-LC-Key-Issues.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+NETMOD WG LC of Module Versioning and YANG Semver
+
+Key issues to resolve in the WG before continuing the WG LC process:
+
+K1) Allow NBC changes in YANG 1.0 & YANG 1.1 or not?
+K2) tbd
+
+Other issues raised but not "key" are below
+
+Should N5 be a "key" issue?
+
+
+###################################
+K1) Allow NBC changes in YANG 1.0 & YANG 1.1 or not?
+
+Option 1 - allow
+-----------------
+- RFC modifies 7950 to allow NBC changes
+- guidance that NBC changes SHOULD NOT be done
+- rev:non-backwards-compatible is a YANG extension
+    - introduction in published YANG does not impact current tooling (ignored until recognized)
+
+
+Option 2 - do not allow
+-------------------------
+- NBC changes only allowed in a future version of YANG
+- TBD: YANG 1.2 vs 2.0
+- Content = Module Versioning + YANG Semver + very limited YANG NEXT items
+- rev:non-backwards-compatible tag is a language keyword
+    - consequence: any use of it breaks all YANG 1.0/1.1 tooling that hasn't been updated
+- IESG will be unable to approve any RFCs that make any changes to IETF YANG modules that don’t strictly conform to those rules
+    - RFC6991 bis would not be allowed to change the use/meaning of ip-address (or change datetime)
+	- date string (SEDATE) and YANG date-and-time couldn't change
+
+
+
+########################################
+other issues (non-key issues):
+N1) File nameing (Robert Varga)
+N2) Default values for deprecated-nodes-implemented & obsolete-nodes-absent (Fengchong)
+N3) recommended-min is insufficient (soft and we need a "max") (Jurgen)
+N4) really need multiple revision label schemes? Collapse to just one?
+N5) make this work a separate "versioning scheme" (where the current 7950 rules are another versioning scheme) (Jurgen)
+N6) maintain import constraints outside of the modules (e.g. semver for a package only) (Jurgen)
+N7) should changes to import recommended-min or revision-date be NBC? (Jurgen)
+N8) use per-node tags instead of top level?  (Jurgen)
+N9) do we really need _COMPATIBLE in YANG Semver? (Jurgen)
+N10) byte-equivalent (semantic API vs byte content of .yang file). Questions about *why* we're tackling this (Jurgen ,Robert V, Andy, Carsten, Tom)
+N11)