Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
I think this has been taken for granted. As such, it is not really a completely new, last minute, requirement, and I think it makes sense to explicitly state it. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
