Re: RFC 847BIS - VRRP YANG Model

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 04:01, tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 03 September 2023 22:16
> 
> For the ietf-vrrp.yang model, I’m updating the YANG model to correspond to the terminology in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/.
> 
> Will I have retain all the existing identities, types, leaves, and notifications that include “master” in their identifiers and deprecate them? There are about a dozen,,,
> <tp>
> When you deprecate them, I expect that they will still be there according to the rules for updating YANG modules so you will have
>     identity vrrp-event-lower-priority-master {
> alongside such as
>     identity vrrp-event-lower-priority-control {
> which might not look very clear in five years time.

Right - but you mean vrrp-event-lower-priority-active… It would be great if we could just publish ietf-vrrp.yang without the identifiers using non-inclusive language and fix it in one shot (we classify it as a bug fix and be done with it). Unlike the VRRP MIB, I don’t think there is a lot of implementation traction. 

Thanks,
Acee



> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Thanks
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg