Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06

Hi,

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> Christer, thanks for your review. I have flagged your first comment in
> my No Objection ballot since it seems like a good point to clarify.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> > On Jul 16, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:14:43AM -0700, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >> 
> >> Minor issues:
> >> 
> >> Sometimes, when a draft updates an existing RFC, people ask whether
> >> implementations not implementing the draft are still compliant with
> >> the updated
> >> RFC. Based on discussions, the consensus seems to be that existing
> >> implementations are still compliant, and if one wants to mandate the
> >> new
> >> features a bis is needed. I would just like to confirm whether that
> >> applies
> >> also to this draft. If so, perhaps a note indicating that would be
> >> useful, in
> >> order to avoid discussions in future?
> > 
> > An existing NETCONF server not implementing NMDA is still compliant to
> > the RFC 6241. However, a NETCONF server implementing NMDA (RFC 8342)
> > has to implement this update to RFC 6241. Do you want to have this
> > stated more explicitly? (We will have the same for RESTCONF and the
> > NMDA update of RESTCONF.)

How about:

OLD:

   An NMDA-compliant NETCONF server MUST support the operational state
   datastore and it MUST implement at least revision 201X-XX-XX of the
   "ietf-yang-library" module defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis].

NEW:

   An NMDA-compliant NETCONF server MUST implement the module
   "ietf-netconf-nmda" defined in this document, MUST support the
   operational state datastore, and it MUST implement at least revision
   201X-XX-XX of the "ietf-yang-library" module defined in
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis].

/martin

> > 
> >> Related to that, it would also be good to have an interoperability
> >> statement, saying that implementations that implement the draft will
> >> still work with implementations that do not.
> > 
> > This primarily concerns clients: They need to be able to fallback to
> > using <edit-config> instead of <edit-data> and <get> instead of
> > <get-data> if they communicate with a non NMDA NETCONF server. I am
> > not sure whether this is a "SHOULD be able to fallback" or a "MUST be
> > able to fallback".
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > Gen-art@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 