Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 11:23:55 AM EDT, Andy Bierman <
> andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in
> the following poll:
>
>   - https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll  (Datatracker login
> required)
>
>
>
> The draft proposed to change many specific MUST and MUST NOT requirements
> to MAY ignore.
> It has been pointed out that the correct change would be SHOULD NOT and
> the use of MAY is inappropriate
> according to the definitions in RFC 2119.
> <RR> I thought the authors had agreed on SHOULD NOT (instead of MAY), but
> I don't recall if this was just in the weekly calls or actually
> communicated to the wg alias.
>
>
So there is choice between:

  (A) YANG 1.1 and SHOULD NOT
  (B) YANG 1.2 and SHOULD NOT

(A) is acceptable.
YANG 1.2 would create a false expectation in the user community that the
IETF
had improved the YANG language somehow.

> Regards,
> Reshad.
>

Andy

>
> Yet the WG continues to propose that these rules in RFC 7950 are purely
> optional and can be ignored by
> any implementation that chooses to do so.
>
> Of course rules that affect backward compatibility and stability do not
> affect the code that compiles a module.
> They only affect the client code that attempts to use the unstable server
> code.
>
>
>
> Kent and Lou
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>