On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Per Hedeland <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-05-21 19:46, Andy Bierman wrote: >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Per Hedeland <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2015-05-21 19:14, Andy Bierman wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> RFC 6020 also states that must and when expessions are XPath 1.0, and we >>>>> are moving away from it. This is IMO a much bigger change than Y45-04. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Show me the "MUST NOT" that is getting reversed and I will agree with you. >>>> I am not objecting to Y45-04. I am objecting to removing a "MUST NOT" >>>> from the standard. Discussion of relative implementation complexity >>>> of other YANG 1.1 changes is irrelevant. >>> >>> I don't have one for that, but these are: >>> >>> A member type can be of any built-in or derived type, except it MUST >>> NOT be one of the built-in types "empty" or "leafref". >>> >>> I believe they're described as CLR in the issues doc... >>> >> >> I don't know about leafref, but type "empty" and a zero-length string >> are identical on the wire, and that is allowed. This is a trivial >> change to YANG syntax. I don't think Y45 has such a trivial impact >> on YANG syntax or usage. > > Probably not (though the needed server implementation change is not > likely to be as trivial as the syntax change), but you said that you > weren't objecting to Y45, but to removing a "MUST NOT"...
I object to removing this specific MUST NOT, not any in general. I don't agree this MUST NOT was an omission or trivial CLR like the example you cited. I think the WG made the correct decision the first time. > > --Per Andy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
