> On Dec 17, 2015:9:36 AM, at 9:36 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> 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
>
>
> [as a chair]
>
> As last call comment, there seems to be support for adding a requirement to
> the opstate-reqs draft to state that solutions supporting said requirements
> MUST be backwards compatible with respect to existing deployments. Do we
> have WG consensus to add this as a requirement to this draft? Are there any
> objections? Please voice your opinion before the last call cutoff date (Dec
> 30).
>
>
> [as a contributor]
>
>
> I’m unsure if it makes sense to call it out in this draft, in that it seems
> universally applicable, but I don’t see any harm in it either and thus do not
> object.
>
>
> Kent
[As Co-chair]
Given the tall hill we climbed to get to this point on the
requirements, I
want to be clear that there needs to be very significant support to change the
requirements
in any significant way. We went round and round the drain on settling on these
requirements, and
people had a whole host of reasonable opportunities to add this during those
times. I want to point out that while this statement may seem subtle, slipping
this in at the last minute could have a profound impact on solutions built from
these requirements, so I want to be sure everyone involved has through through
this kind of change.
—Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
