On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Randy Presuhn < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi - > ...... > > The problem is specifying the rules for insulating the old client. > > One design pattern we have come up with assumes that the old client > > does not know about new identityref values, so it won't try to create > > or replace an entry using a new identity. > > This assumes that creating an un-augmented instance was *ever* a meaningful > thing to do. I think part of the challenge here is that given the tools > we currently have, the alternative is create a bunch of data definitions > (classes) that look suspisciously similar, but with no formal > representation > of their common heritage. > > This is the the core issue. YANG has no way to describe the design pattern Lada wants to use. How about if MUST is changed to SHOULD? Plus add some text saying new mandatory nodes can break old clients using the parent data structure, so care should be taken...etc. It will be up to vendors to keep it sane, or pay the penalty with customers for breaking their applications. Randy > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
