Hi, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > Christer, thanks for your review. I have flagged your first comment in > my No Objection ballot since it seems like a good point to clarify. > > Alissa > > > On Jul 16, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:14:43AM -0700, Christer Holmberg wrote: > >> > >> 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.)
How about: OLD: An NMDA-compliant NETCONF server MUST support the operational state datastore and it MUST implement at least revision 201X-XX-XX of the "ietf-yang-library" module defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis]. NEW: An NMDA-compliant NETCONF server MUST implement the module "ietf-netconf-nmda" defined in this document, MUST support the operational state datastore, and it MUST implement at least revision 201X-XX-XX of the "ietf-yang-library" module defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis]. /martin > > > >> 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". > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
