Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > > wrote: > > > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > >> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor > >>>>> models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that > >>>>> a group of people "really like it" some other way. > >>>> > >>>> I'm equally unsure that having an argument of "I got there first" is a > >>>> compelling argument given the number of folks (including vendors) who > >>>> have stated willingness (or even support) for change. I think having > >>>> a > >>>> major class of users stand up and say this is important should garner > >>>> some notice. > >>> > >>> Please keep in mind that we are talking about several published > >>> proposed standards that have been implemented and deployed. I think > >>> there must be convincing technical reasons to declare them broken and > >>> to redo them. > >> > >> Other than adding /device at the top, we are not obsoleting RFC > >> 7223. > > > > This doesn't make sense. The YANG model is the contract. You are > > proposing changing the contract. The fact is that you will be > > obsoleting 7223 (and the other RFCs). Existing devices and > > applications will have to change in order to handle this new top-level > > node (which will be in some other namespace I presume, unless your > > proposal is one gigantic monolithic model). > > > > > > /martin > > Again I will ask: why is this bad?
My point above was in reply to the statement that "we are not obsoleting RFC 7223" [because the change is so small?] - you would in fact be obsoleting the model in 7223. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
