Re: [yang-doctors] guideline for enum and value?

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:41:52PM +0000, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) wrote:
> Juergen,
> 
> The CBOR text does not invalidate the rationale I have discussed below. I recognize that the CBOR approach would break between model revisions if model authors arbitrarily reordered enums, but since that is already counter to RFC7950 backwards-compatibility guidelines, that is a non-issue.
> 
> So, even with the CBOR intent to use numeric wireline encoding, avoiding the explicit use of the value statement still seems like an overall benefit to the majority of developers.
>

Developers can shoot themself into the food in either way. So how are
we going to declare that one way of shooting yourself into the food it
better than the other?

Here is my reasoning: If developers go and change explicit enum
values, I believe they more likely realize that they break a contract
by doing so. If they just change the order of enum definitions, they
may not realize that they also changed the value associated with an
enum. This is my reasoning.

And yes, RFC 7950 section 11 first bullet clear says that regardless
how you shoot yourself into the food, it will hurt. So we can be
entirely silent about this because RFC 7950 section 11 really nails
it.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>