Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Joel Jaeggli <> Sun, 24 March 2019 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0819120090; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTOEA2HykibX; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CA7120091; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:647:4201:4561:7880:d3dd:ff74:edbf] ([IPv6:2601:647:4201:4561:7880:d3dd:ff74:edbf]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x2OIdNqt039936; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:39:24 GMT (envelope-from
From: Joel Jaeggli <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8FDE05E2-4CBC-4789-A2CD-F365489FDFE8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:39:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, "" <>
To: Lou Berger <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:39:34 -0000

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 12:07, Lou Berger <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you all for the good input on this thread.
> With the understanding that a 00 working group document is a starting point for the working group rather than a document that is ready for last call - we believe there is sufficient support to adopt this document as a starting point for the requirements we wish to address on this topic.
> It is clear that there is still work to be done on this document before we can declare consensus on it and, not surprisingly, that there is more work to be done on the solution.
> Authors, 
> Please resubmit this document as draft-ietf-netmod-yang-revision-reqs-00 with the only change being the name and publication date.  The -01 version should focus on resolving issues raised during adoption.  Of course the document is subject to normal WG input and processing.
> Please note the 'file' name change -this is to indicate that the requirements are not presupposing a specific solution. It is also consistent with how versioning is defined within the document currently.
> Note: we would like to try to continue the list discussion in next week's session and ask the Authors/DT to summarize issues raised during the adoption call and lead a discussion to help resolve these issues.
I think this meeting is great opportunity to decide what steps need to be taken to advance the document within the working group.

Martin specifically objects to the presence of of Non-Backward-Compatible changes. 

Many modules outside the IETF are already incompatible with roc 7950 yang 1.1 revision rules. So that cat may be out of the bag at least with respect to the real world. the question remains what to do about that?