Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com> wrote: > [Speaking for myself] > > Is the resistance to this proposal because of the actual changes to > structure, or is it a resistance to churn/change?
The former. IMO this is technically not a good proposal, as I have tried to explain several times. > And if we solved the > latter by say relaxing the rules around how we progress models to PS, > would this alleviate the concerns for the former? The meta question I > will ask is: is the existing RFC process adequate/sufficient for us to > move forward on such a large scale with Yang models at the IETF? > Other organizations currently iterate on models using certain revision > conventions (that are consistent with the rules we put out here) yet > produce multiple versions of the same model within the same year. As > a matter of fact, multiple versions are allowed to coexist within a > single implementation. In stark contrast, the M.O. at the IETF has > been to treat Yang models much like we did SNMP MIBs (or any other > document here) thereby assuming that once it becomes an RFC, that it > is largely set in concrete for many years to come. In this specific case the change is cosmetic but has disastrous effects on other standard modules, other vendor-specific modules, existing server code and existing client code. I think people expect IETF standards to be a bit more stable than that. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
