> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:49:02AM -0400, David Reid wrote: > > > >I'm reviewing 6020bis since it is in working group last call. > > > >I see a new requirement that a server MUST NOT implement > > > >more than one revision of a module. I understand that supporting > > > >more than one revision can cause problems, but I expect that > > > >it will happen in practice. I know it happens sometimes with > > > >MIBs in SNMP. I think MUST NOT is too strong. > > > > > > I've encountered the same phenomenon in the SNMP universe, > > > so if I expected Netconf to used as a replacement for SNMP > > > I'd have the same concern. > > > > > > Randy > > > > Here is the situation I face. We put a netconf server in our SNMP Master > > agent. Using the MIB to YANG conversion rules from RFC 6643 we can provide > > read-only access (or read-write in a non-standard way) via netconf and yang > > to all of the MIB data. We have existing customers using different revisions > > of the same MIB module in different subagents. If they convert those > > MIB modules to YANG modules and access the information via netconf, it > > would violate the proposed rule. > > The RFC 6643 translation generates no mandatory statements in YANG and > the RFC 6643 translation is read-only. So for read-only access, using > the latest MIB module as a basis should work since SMIv2 has strict > backwards compatibility rules, no?
For read-only objects, yes. But Andy argued that for read-write objects I should advertise the oldest revision. This is not a problem in YANG yet because we don't have multiple versions of YANG modules in the field yet. Why does yang 1.1 add the new requirement that a server MUST NOT implement more than 1 revision? If there is an e-mail thread, you can point me at that rather than re-hash the arguements here. -David Reid _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
