On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:24:47PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> The problem is there is no cookie-cutter formula for a safe "when"
> statement. The common use-case is pick-an-identity from iana-if-type.
> Clearly we do not intend for a server to support every interface type
> just because it advertises the iana-if-types module. Also, we
> cannot assume the client knows about module A just because it
> knows about iana-if-type.
>
It might help if we go back to the issues list and the meeting
documentation. It seems we are redoing a discussion we already had.
2014-07-09 meeting action: There is agreement that the current text
is overly restrictive. The proposal is to add general
guiding rules that backwards compatibility needs to be
maintained. Lets see whether someone can write more
concrete rules when mandatory nodes in augment are
allowed.
2015-03-23 ietf 92 meeting: The opinion after discussion at the meeting
was leaning towards Y26-02.
See the meeting minutes and recordings for more details. Are there any
fundamentally new insights that should change the conclusion of the
IETF 92 meeting (which was verified on the mailing list in April)?
Has someone meanwhile managed to produce text that clearly defines
when mandatory nodes in augments are 'safe' in the sense that they do
not break clients that are not aware of the augmentation? If not, we
should perhaps not waste cycles rehashing an old and closed issue.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
