[netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Mon, 31 March 2025 20:21 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
X-Original-To: netmod@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: netmod@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65F115658B4 for <netmod@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b="mZ+Bivop"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="ZTvQYGvL"
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNoAKdcBVWgc for <netmod@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fout-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.149]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C65E15658A6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.phl.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE54A138442C; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:21:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1743452475; x=1743538875; bh=wsb0x+CNYcXdSBj34qOxl00+qIJTzL1FmlidVECekS0=; b= mZ+BivopjDwmVv6KWq07et52XJYVd68sEvBWoi/Edw2e54k7cGakTyzt8FdJozag motDJZpEceUg3SR+Z8DGWkjijpKCxs9XX3dlhU2d4NQsXU1sNzt+G+F6M4yfe7iL cLHrjKVeuybawxAcftnX/3TWAFPBNL5cViFVhjC4PFK9Y5asflBykvamBRvxeE1s XmkFOJe4dePXSL9bR1mDH1E6e8DWEbpljutKxlb6p85ixXUc0tKTOPCZri7Pn0Kv ltNDG8fKcQpIeRm8ZMhPJNuWI53nGy3laeIvnNxHQb4CTXeRMd5OA2SvdaVZkKoR sRs5r/5LoiyP24BxFeqQFA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1743452475; x= 1743538875; bh=wsb0x+CNYcXdSBj34qOxl00+qIJTzL1FmlidVECekS0=; b=Z TvQYGvL2UQ10jCIgKlv2AJRpjaN6Az6J4VeA+3/Ds9gVOMjiiGqCyxbYomdoui85 MyvrSy/LBV6FY+ss3grBzUkunguta43M3Uv4n8wUN0OwhNWAbl4v8Rxf4yhzBfFJ Hz10jHRELaJ799bfaNlESu72hTqolZpVfWcOn2Ldb3akZDEMdo+e1BqKJ1Km31u+ FvWQ49JndodFalgTAyJc4UhAaJ+r2vqah7kmVxcXGRg/EXRcZsJIIJRSc7YvMLYN iNEnSh0gxdel4KkHd4uO1mGD52gxvx9lO4RUkJ8Z2gXs59+Qvdi7kG66c9w2EF4Y EboLyFG1XgldrbuYImLNg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:O_nqZ0jTQCaqerwDNzAjDNbO28hjTqCvgqJ-YbEMX9ZUwJPyfOE11g> <xme:O_nqZ9DBwgVt5DFNkIvAkLhOc6vo9OMZjQI4xzV-II4gjur0DG-x1uIbA9kVyObRn nzxF_cVjzNi4YuU8bU>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:O_nqZ8G9LXHr9a4kd2ZIly40mhh0064rNSiSV1URxXQlj7N31qXRGvNb9ldVU_vY-gJhFth9HLAwDu3Iz1ikpA1UQamNdsa04g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddukedtkeejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkf fvvefuhfgjfhfogggtgfesthejredtredtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpn rhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrh hnpeehheehhfetueeuvefghfefieehuddvteelvedtgfelgfejieeiueekuddvteegteen ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjod hivghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvgdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphho uhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgtrhdoihgvthhfsehsrghnuggvlhhmrghnrdgtrgdprhgtph htthhopehmjhgvthhhrghnrghnuggrnhhisehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohep rhifihhlthhonhepgedttghishgtohdrtghomhesughmrghrtgdrihgvthhfrdhorhhgpd hrtghpthhtohepnhgvthhmohgusehivghtfhdrohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O_nqZ1SdxNnugNj7v0XXDfhQv5YUyJrqyT4P-ElqD4Kxf8UQcIOJDQ> <xmx:O_nqZxw5xHvXtextQwcc92qgIJnuIrQpVUgApzzD3Mdi_vpCsCV5TA> <xmx:O_nqZz4VkmzuxL-2ro4MJN6paRGE5A4KDyR0_a4gijImf02_70KogA> <xmx:O_nqZ-xQDkVbYaecM1ja0JEoSWXYsucvwaR1mUsb0CF8Pjs_t9WFUQ> <xmx:O_nqZzuRKGZwpwNwRQiwp-3TlnE1s5jS04aQ50COda39F8vxfWnjroOD>
Feedback-ID: icc614784:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:21:12 +0200
Message-Id: <20250331.222112.2147980194977529659.id@4668.se>
To: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <3489.1743439998@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <LV8PR11MB8536FC67F873E7EE3DF9411EB5AD2@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <76C34C7C-BD19-446D-8360-8619C30CD56F@gmail.com> <3489.1743439998@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.9 on Emacs 29.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: NQU654LO3FBYVNIL7CQH7K5TTSYTUF4H
X-Message-ID-Hash: NQU654LO3FBYVNIL7CQH7K5TTSYTUF4H
X-MailFrom: mbj+ietf@4668.se
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netmod.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/2LkkqROwuhNPVYIfw6MltmncYNc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netmod-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netmod-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netmod-leave@ietf.org>
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > I still think 7950 should have Update 6020. RFC 7950 defines YANG version 1.1. It doesn't change version 1.0 (RFC 6020) at all. /martin
- [netmod] RFC7950 vs RFC6020 Michael Richardson
- [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020 tom petch
- [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020 Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020 Mahesh Jethanandani
- [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020 Michael Richardson
- [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020 Martin Björklund