IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Thu, 25 January 2018 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC0B1242F7 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:17:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6oYS2BSUCpO9 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DBC12025C for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E63ED629FA; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:16:58 +0000 (UTC)
References: <20180125.095921.224499312159563778.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180125091118.tjn5eiv2hzmc7k23@elstar.local> <dfb94426-c408-e215-e23b-539e127050a2@cisco.com> <20180125.120804.68412726225731762.mbj@tail-f.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.3.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: bclaise@cisco.com, einarnn@cisco.com, yang-doctors@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20180125.120804.68412726225731762.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:16:57 -0500
Message-ID: <87inbqxhdy.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/rtO0Q4I1ZKugiPqio9GjWdaaZWs>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] guideline for enum and value?
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:17:01 -0000

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:

> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Granted, I read RFC 7950, section 11, bullet 1 multiple times by now,
>> but I forgot. And finding that paragraph back is ... well
>> challenging
>
> Note that when the initial module is designed, this doesn't matter.
>
> When you upgrade a module, I think we can assume that people read
> section 11 of RFC 7950.

This made me wonder, shouldn't incompatible changes be caught somewhere
in the model validation process? Do we have tooling to support that? I
realize this would only apply to our own process (and anyone who borrows
it).

Thanks,
Chris.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email