Hi Juergen, It seems like I missed your reply earlier. Sorry for that. See inline.
>> Minor issues: >> >> Sometimes, when a draft updates an existing RFC, people ask whether >> implementations not implementing the draft are still compliant with the >> updated >> RFC. Based on discussions, the consensus seems to be that existing >> implementations are still compliant, and if one wants to mandate the new >> features a bis is needed. I would just like to confirm whether that applies >> also to this draft. If so, perhaps a note indicating that would be useful, in >> order to avoid discussions in future? > > An existing NETCONF server not implementing NMDA is still compliant to > the RFC 6241. However, a NETCONF server implementing NMDA (RFC 8342) > has to implement this update to RFC 6241. Do you want to have this > stated more explicitly? (We will have the same for RESTCONF and the > NMDA update of RESTCONF.) I think it would be useful. >> Related to that, it would also be good to have an interoperability >> statement, saying that implementations that implement the draft will >> still work with implementations that do not. > > This primarily concerns clients: They need to be able to fallback to > using <edit-config> instead of <edit-data> and <get> instead of > <get-data> if they communicate with a non NMDA NETCONF server. I am > not sure whether this is a "SHOULD be able to fallback" or a "MUST be > able to fallback". If you use MUST, you guarantee that fallback will always work (assuming implementations follow the spec). If you use SHOULD, I think you'll need some additional discussion on when it doesn't apply, what to do then, etc. So, my suggestion (from a reviewer perspective) would be MUST. Regards, Christer
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
