> On 17 Dec 2015, at 08:17, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:18:42AM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: >> >> [as a contributor] >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> I’m struggling a bit to understand what is motivating you to ask this >> question. That is, as a tool vendor, I wouldn’t think that any decision >> made here would affect you immediately. My expectations are that any >> impact to YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF would be backwards compatible, such that >> implementations would only opt-in when needed - a pay as you grow strategy. >> But herein perhaps lies an unstated requirement, that the impact to >> YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF needs to be backwards compatible with respect to >> existing deployments. Did we miss it or is it too obvious? >> > > It may be obvious for many of us but for the sake of completeness I > prefer to have this backwards compatibility assumption explicitely > stated.
+1 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/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
