Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Executive Summary

General objectives of the ONAP Common Versioning Strategy (CVS) for all APIs:

  • Implement semantic versioning (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH) for APIs
  • If necessary, refactor APIs to support the concept of MINOR releases; versioning scope and use cases provided
  • Adopt a BWC policy for APIs that is current MAJOR release minus 1 year (to be re-visited post-Casablanca)

HTTP/REST API specific rules/policies:

  • Implement pre-defined custom headers to communicate MINOR, PATCH, and LATEST VERSION
  • Align URLs to include only the MAJOR version
  • Documentation using Swagger 2.0, by following the guidance provided

ONAP CVS Proposal Deck was presented to the Architecture Committee on 4/3/2018, and modified on 4/11/2018 to correct the flow diagrams and case of the custom header names.

Clarification on terminology:

  • SHALL (mandatory) is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding, meaning it must be implemented, and its implementation verified.
  • SHOULD (non-mandatory) is used to indicate a goal which must be addressed by the design team, but is not formally verified.

Policies for All APIs 

Implementing Semantic Versioning for APIs

  • Utilizes the same semantic versioning methodology that is being used for ONAP’s Release Versioning Strategy; therefore, development teams are familiar with the definition of the methodology.
  • For a given a version number, MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
    • MAJOR position when you make any incompatible API change
    • MINOR position when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner
    • PATCH (or BUILD) position when you make invisible (and thus backwards-compatible) bug fixes
  • Details of the specification can be found at http://semver.org/

Versioning Scope and Use Cases

Definition of Layers (second column in the table below)

  • API-wide - versioning at this level creates a new set of URIs to identify the resources
  • Resource-wide - independently version different parts of the API's resource model; major change to a specific resource model with the notion that not all the resource models will change (namespace changes, add a new resource)
  • Representation layer - modify and enhance the format, structure or content of resources that are served by the API without changing the resource model
  • Behavior change - changes in behavior that do not change the resource model or representation; can include changes in process or state management

Use Case

Layer

MAJOR

MINOR

PATCH1

Refactoring resource model, if it has become fragile or overly complex through many evolutionary steps; introduce a set of namespaces to reflect the category of resources (nothing is where it used to be)

API X

Restructure resource(s) to meet new business requirements/conform to emerging interface standard(s)API

Add a required request parameter value without defaultAPI 

Add a required request parameter value with defaultAPI 
 X
Add a new resource model or typeResource
X
Update an existing resource model or type w/BWC Resource
 X
Update an existing resource model or type w/out BWC Resource X

Adding optional data items to an input resource representationResource
 X
Add a new behavior method w/no changes to existing behavior methods (e.g. add PUT as a method when it did not exist as prior functionality)Behavior 
X
Changes to data volume on returned response Behavior 

Changes to undocumented sorting order of data on returned response w/out changes to volumeBehavior 

Changes to documented sorting order of data on returned response w/out changes to volumeBehavior  X

Changes in behavior that do not change the resource model or representationBehavior 
 X
Deprecate method, but do not change the structure of the resource model or representationBehavior 

Adding new optional parameter(s) (that do not change default behavior) to requests 

Representation
  X

Adding data items to an output resource representation, where any prescribed schema validation (for example, XML Schema or JSON-Schema validation) is not broken 

Representation
 X
Fix a defect that does not impact behavior or representation (e.g. fix internal algorithm to run more efficiently) General

Changes to error codes, whereas the error code content is updated or changed, with no change in the resource model or representation API 

1 PATCH refers to the position in the version number, not the HTTP method of PATCH. This method should not be used as it is idempotent.

Backward Compatibility (BWC) Policy - TO BE REVISITED DURING OR POST-CASABLANCA

  • API BWC shall be defined for MAJOR releases as the current release - 1 year (to be re-visited post-Casablanca). In other words, if an API is currently at 1.12 and a MAJOR release occurs to increment the version to 2.0, 1.12 (which is BWC for versions 1.0-1.11) must be functional/available for the period of 1 year after 2.0 is released.
  • API owners shall ensure the previous MAJOR release remains available and functioning, in its last available production state, for the period of the BWC policy.
  • MINOR releases shall be not time or release-based, as they are assumed to be BWC.
  • API owners shall ensure no end-to-end services break with the deprecation of an API, due to the BWC Policy. End-to-end services includes, but is not limited to, VNFs, PNFs, Networks, Allotted Resources, etc.

Policies for HTTP/REST APIs

API Custom Headers and Behavior

Custom Headers and General Rules

  • Three custom headers shall support versioning in APIs:
    • X-MinorVersion
    • X-PatchVersion
    • X-LatestVersion
  • The request from the client shall not break, if the headers are absent in the request.
  • Clients shall ignore additional values from the payload in the response, if provided.
    • It shall be explicitly specified in the interface contract that a server may increment a MINOR version and add additional fields.
    • The client shall be capable of handling this type of change in contract, if they remain on a previous MINOR version.
  • The server shall employ logic to fallback to the MAJOR version of the API, in the event that X-MinorVersion is not provided (see use case below).
Use case for falling back versus failing forward to the MAJOR version of the API

The vserver entity in v1 of ECOMP had no “prov-status” field.
The prov-status field was added in v1.1 as a non breaking change.  

The RO client PUTs all the data in the vserver except the prov-status field, so they use v1.
The GFP client manages the prov-status field in the vserver.  They use v1.1.  

A REST PUT must include the entire representation of the object.
Therefore a v1 PUT does not include the prov-status but the v1.1 PUT must.  

If only major versions get passed, and the system should fail forward, a PUT by RO lacking the prov-status field would wipe out the prov-status value.

 

Custom Headers Specification

Header Name

Specification

X-MinorVersion
  • Used to request or communicate a MINOR version back from the client to the server, and from the server back to the client
  • This will be the MINOR version requested by the client, or the MINOR version of the last MAJOR version (if not specified by the client on the request)
  • Clarification: This will always be the MINOR version requested by the client - OR - if the client does not specify, it will default back to the very first MAJOR version of the server. For example, if the server is on 1.1 and the client does not send X-MinorVersion, the API call will default to 1.0 which makes the MINOR version = 0. This lets the client know they are not receiving the latest version, and they will know because X-LatestVersion will notify them. 
  • Contains a single position value (e.g. if the full version is 1.24.5, X-MinorVersion = "24")
  • Is optional for the client on request; however, this header should be provided if the client needs to take advantage of MINOR incremented version functionality
  • Is mandatory for the server on response
X-PatchVersion
  • Used only to communicate a PATCH version in a response for troubleshooting purposes only, and will not be provided by the client on request
  • This will be the latest PATCH version of the MINOR requested by the client, or the latest PATCH version of the MAJOR (if not specified by the client on the request)
  • Clarification: This will always be the PATCH version the server is running.
  • Contains a single position value (e.g. if the full version is 1.24.5, X-PatchVersion = "5")
  • Is mandatory for the server on response
X-LatestVersion
  • Used only to communicate an API's latest version
  • Is mandatory for the server on response, and shall include the entire version of the API (e.g. if the full version is 1.24.5, X-LatestVersion = "1.24.5")
  • Used in the response to inform clients that they are not using the latest version of the API

Custom Header Flow Diagrams

URL Structure Policy

  • The URL shall only contain the MAJOR version number to minimize changes in the URL for MINOR and PATCH releases, assuming MINOR.PATCH releases are BWC. 
  • The structure of the URL shall be as follows, where version is placed after the "service" or API name:

…/root/{service or API name}/v{version number}/{resource path}

Example: {hostname}/aai/resource/v14/complexes

*Note: "v" should precede the MAJOR version number in the URL. Service or API name is not the resource; it is intended to group of set of related resources.

FOR RESTCONF APIs ONLY


In RESTCONF, APIs are organized by "modules", which for our purposes we can say are analogous to services.  There are 3 different types of APIs, each with its own standard URI format:


  • Configuration data (also referred to as "config tree"), which stores the in flight view of network data (so it shows pending changes).
    • Required URI is  /restconf/config/{module}/{resource} 
  • Operational data (also referred to as the operational tree), which stores the current active view of network data.  
    • Required URI is /restconf/operational/{module}/{resource}
  • RPCs
    • Required URI is /restconf/operational/{module}/{rpc name}

URIs for ONAP will follow the convention below: 


  • Configuration data: /restconf/config/{service}:v{version}_{resource}  e.g. /restconf/config/neutron:v2_networks
  • Operational tree : /restconf/operational/{service}:v{version}_{resource} e.g. /restconf/operational/neutron:v2_networks
  • RPC : /restconf/operations/{service}:v{version}_{rpc} e.g. /restconf/operations/SLI-API:v1_healthcheck



Requirements/Extensions of the Swagger 2.0 Specification

Spec ID

Specification/Requirement

SG-1All components shall use Swagger 2.0. The specification may be found here. OpenAPI 3.0 is a roadmap item.
SG-2

Within the Info Object, the following annotations are included in the Swagger specification and shall be required, even if they are optional in the Swagger spec:

title

description

version - fully-qualified version number of the Swagger file (ex: 1.4.18)

SG-3 

Within the Info Object, the following are extensions of the Swagger specification and shall be required:

x-planned-retirement-date - use YYMM; string type. This is the date that the API shall be deprecated, based on the BWC Policy. NOTE: APIs may be active after their retirement date, but are not guaranteed to remain in production. An API retirement may be pushed out to accommodate BWC for clients.

x-component - SDC, MSO, SNIRO, etc., or the mS name; string type. This is the component that primarily owns the API from a development perspective.

SG-4

Under the Path, the following shall be required:

x-interface info - this contains two attributes:

      • api-version - fully-qualified version number of the API (ex: 1.3.6); string type. This is the version of the API. This differs from the version in SG-2 above. Components shall follow the Versioning Use Cases above to determine how to evolve API versions.
      • last-mod-release - use release number or name (this should be consistent, choose either one); string type. This is the last release that the API was modified in. 
SG-5 

Swagger files shall be generated at build time, and be placed in a centralized ReadTheDocs repository: http://docs.onap.org

SG-6 

Within the Path Item Object, the following are included in the Swagger specification and shall be required

description - string

parameters

      • required - boolean
      • type - string

Working Team Information/Discussion

Working Team Members

* Responsible team lead

Discussion Items

Item

What

Notes

1

R3 Focus/Scope

Establish/finalize a proposal for a generic versioning methodology, URL structure for HTTP/REST APIs, and Swagger 2.0/OpenAPI 3.0 guidance.

  • The items in this scope are low hanging fruit that could be achievable for Casablanca; assess doability after the proposal is put forth in the community.
  • If one of the identified scope items for R3 cannot be achieved, it is assumed it will move into R4.
  • Dana will pull out all relevant items in her deck and park on this page below for the team to review.
  • The definition of MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH for the Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 specification is very explicit; we should not deviate from the definitions in the specification (like re-purposing the positions to hold another value).

Current recommendations (on the table):

  • Utilize the semantic versioning methodology for APIs (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH); same definition of the methodology being used for ONAP releases.
  • Provide use cases as guidance for incrementing version numbers (see below).
  • Provide URL structure policy (see below).
  • Provide requirements/extensions of the Swagger 2.0/OpenAPI specification (see below).
R4 and Beyond 

Establish/finalize a proposal for backwards compatibility (BWC) and exposing API versions.

  • BWC would come after all the APIs are "speaking the same language" in how versions are characterized. Once that occurs, we can look to how those API versions are exposed to clients/within interfaces.
  • Dana Bobko has a proposal in her deck that talks about custom headers, but that is just one of many ways this could be done - plus, we need to consider if that will work for every API.
Noteworthy 

Dana Bobko will be working with Gregory Glover to combine the results of this working team with the Documentation effort (there are intersection points).

4Open issueHow do we deal with restconf interfaces (e.g. ODL-based components)? See Dan's comment
  1. REST APIs Must be Hypertext-Driven: Blog post where Roy Fielding argues that not any HTTP-based interface is a REST API
  2. RESTful API Design Specification (for ONAP)
  3. REST APIs don’t need a versioning strategy – they need a change strategy







23 Comments

  1. This is a great proposal, I just have two comments:

    1. The header version negotiation mechanism seems complicated. If we want to achieve something like that, the ONAP service implementations need to maintain a lot of states about the version, like which object fields are added at which minor version. Given the minor version is just some changes which are supposed to be back-compatible, should we just use the URL to indicate the MAJOR version and always send the latest MINOR and PATCH version of that MAJOR version to the client? 

    2.  Can we use the url structure in the RESTful API Design Specification ?, it's already widely adopted in ONAP and is aligned with the version strategy proposing here. Reusing it can avoid a lot of unnecessary rework.

    1. 1. We can’t fall forward because of the REST implications. For example:

      If v1 of a payload has: {

        Field1

        Field2

      }

      And v1.1 of a payload has

      {

        Field1

        Field2

        Field3
      }

      Falling forward would not give the server enough knowledge about whether:

      the client knew about 1.1 and just didn’t send the third field in their payload, or

      if the client did NOT know, speaks 1.0, and only knows to send the two fields. 

      The PATCH version is only being set back to indicate to the client that something did change, in the event that the server introduced what it thought was a MINOR change.

      2. How is the URL structure in the Spec you provided different from what is proposed here? I provided a real world example above for you to use as a reference. The Spec talks about dogs and pet stores so it is hard for me to tell. (smile)

      1. 1.  I think if it's a MINOR change, it is supposed to be back-compatible, so the client can handle it without the notion of the changed part, otherwise, it's a MAJOR change.

        2. The suggested URL structure is http://[host]:[port]/api/{service name}]/v{version number}/{resource} , if we need a concrete example, we can use http://{hostname}/api/multicloud/v0/vim_types

      2. I am not sure I buy the example above. I would imagine that with versioning in place, the communication between two functions would take place iff  both functions can make use of the same interface version. Mismatches of interface versions during communication would not be allowed....

        1. I agree that "both functions can make use of the same interface version", however, they only need to align with each other on the MAJOR version.  According to Semantic Versioning:

          1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
          2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and
          3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.

          When I think about "back-compatible", my assumption is that a lower version client can talk with a higher version server or vice versa.  So only the MAJOR version should be taken into consideration when the client and server are talking with each other, which has already been handled by the "version" part of the URL. 

  2. Huabing,

    I've asked this question before, I am goint to ask it again... (smile)  Why do we need the port number exposed in the URL?  We can either establish a convention for how ports are used my microservices, or map incoming API calls to specific ports as part of the registry lookups.

    What do you think?


    Alex


    1. Hi Alex,

      It's an "HTTP URL format standard", so the port should be there, otherwise, the request might not be sent out because the SDK/framework(let's say, the java http lib) you are using assumes the port is 80, which is not true in most cases.


  3. I posted a comment last year on the wiki page the url structure in the RESTful API Design Specification indicating technical issues with the proposed URL format.  Here is that comment again :

    The URI format above does not fit well for controllers based on OpenDaylight - or more generally, for controllers that expose RESTCONF interfaces. There are existing conventions in RESTCONF that are built in to OpenDaylight (and probably other controller platforms as well) that could make it difficult to meet the URI standards above exactly, but we can get fairly close.

    In RESTCONF, APIs are organized by "modules", which for our purposes we can say are analogous to services.  There are 3 different types of APIs, each with its own standard URI format:

    • Configuration data (also referred to as "config tree"), which stores the in flight view of network data (so it shows pending changes).
      • Required URI is  /restconf/config/{module}/{resource} 
    • Operational data (also referred to as the operational tree), which stores the current active view of network data.  
      • Required URI is /restconf/operational/{module}/{resource}
    • RPCs
      • Required URI is /restconf/operational/{module}/{rpc name}


    I propose the following conventions for versioned RESTCONF APIs for ONAP:

    • Configuration data: /restconf/config/{service}:v{version}_{resource}  e.g. /restconf/config/neutron:v2_networks
    • Operational tree : /restconf/operational/{service}:v{version}_{resource} e.g. /restconf/operational/neutron:v2_networks
    • RPC : /restconf/operations/{service}:v{version}_{rpc} e.g. /restconf/operations/SLI-API:v1_healthcheck

    This is fairly close to the proposed standard, with the exception that the separator between version and resource is an underbar instead of a slash.

    If this is not acceptable, then SDNC and APPC will need to change their architecture to route through some form of proxy (e.g. apache) whose only purpose is to rewrite the URL, which seems inefficient and error prone.

    1. I think this proposal would work. I will add it to the agenda when we meet next on 6/6/18.

  4. There's an alternative approach to versioning REST-ish APIs that relies on standard features of HTTP rather than new, proprietary headers, and that provides for more granular versioning.   Specifically, the alternative approach versions the individual resource representations rather than the entire API.  There's a concise discussion of this approach at http://barelyenough.org/blog/2008/05/versioning-rest-web-services/.    The approach proposed here actually makes it difficult to implement the hypertext-driven APIs suggested in the Fielding reference above (reference #1); the alternative is more consistent with Fielding's approach.

    Was this alternative considered? 


    1. This is a very simple, sensible way of making sure the payloads are compatible. Much easier to implement and enforce than the proposal above.

      1. I can send you the meeting invite to the next Versioning Subcommittee meeting so you can voice your concerns.

    2. Several approaches were discussed, including this one.

      I can send you the meeting invite to the next Versioning Subcommittee meeting so you can voice your concerns.

      1. This link was shared with the working team during our discussions.

  5. Chris Donley - this proposal seems like a lot of overhead. What problem is it really trying to solve? I am going to request that the PTL's be allowed to vote as to whether to adopt this or not. Since we are the ones that have to implement it.

    1. I can send you the meeting invite to the next Versioning Subcommittee meeting so you can voice your concerns.

      This proposal was presented to the PTLs a few weeks ago (I'm sorry I don't recall the exact date). It was combined with the documentation proposal put forth by Gregory Glover.

  6. I want to confirm - is the proposal suggesting to have a single version for a given API for all its resources?  Or a version for the API level and separate versions for the individual resources?

    If its the former, then that means for an API with many resources that a change to a single resource would affect the version of all the other resources correct?

    1. In the use cases, adding a resource would increment the minor version of the API.

      1. So if my API is on version 1.0.0 and I have:

        GET /v1/foo
        
        Returns:
        
        X-LatestVersion: 1.0.0
        { "a": <some value> }

        And I add a new resource called bar that does not impact foo. Is the following correct?:

        GET /v1/foo
        
        Returns:
        
        X-LatestVersion: 1.1.0
        { "a": <some value> }

        My question is whether the version is global, on the individual resources, or both?

        If the version is on the resources then X-LatestVersion wouldn't change in the example above.

        1. You are correct. The URL would not change for bar. If the client wanted to access bar, they would pass in the X-MinorVersion=1 in the header to access that resource.

          The version is at the namespace level, not the resource level.

  7. Just reiterating a comment on another page RESTful API Design Specification with a counterpoint to this method of versioning:

    I want my API to be versioned

    The first thing that people do when they want a versioned API is to shove a /v1/ in the URL. THIS IS BAD!!!!!1Accept solves this problem. What you're really asking for is "I'd like the version two representation of this resource." So use accept!

    http://blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2011-07-03-nobody-understands-rest-or-http

    See also discussion at StackOverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/972226/how-to-version-rest-uris

    1. We debated this option on the working team. The URL structure is just one factor of the overall strategy. The challenge with versioning APIs is that there are several ways to deal with it, and there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do it. The working team had to decide on one. 

      You're welcome to propose a complete alternate strategy and bring it to the ONAP CVS team; however, this API strategy has already been slated for Casablanca. It was socialized with the TSC and PTLs on numerous occasions, as well as the Architecture Subcommittee.

      Here is the link to the CVS working team's page with the meeting information: Common Versioning Architecture Team