Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:52:00AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > [...] > >> The "schema" part addresses syntactic changes in protocol messages, >> which are inevitable, and the second part is about risky >> annotations. I agree evil annotations should be banned but I am not >> sure we can find a satisfactory formulation. Do you have any >> suggestion? > > Perhaps the simples solution is to remove the first sentence in order > to avoid having 'schema' understood in different ways. (I personally > believe an annotation MUST NOT change data model semantics but lets > try to find a compromise.) So my proposal is to replace the entire > paragraph with: > > Due care has to be exercised when introducing annotations in network > management systems in order to avoid interoperability problems and > software failures. The following aspects should be taken into > account:
I am fine with this. In a parallel thread I proposed to extend YANG spec with a general permission for instance data and protocol messages to include annotations (in any encoding). This would help to make sure that compliant parsers won't choke on XML attributes or JSON objects whose names start with "@". Would this be acceptable? Lada > > /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/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
