> On 18 Dec 2015, at 17:06, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > if we want people to take YANG modules appearing in I-Ds seriously and > implement them, then we should apply the revisioning rules to them. That is, > if a module changes between two I-D revisions, then its revision-date has to > be bumped and a new entry added to the revision history. As it is now, the > I-D-based modules are esentially revisionless. > > > > The revision rules only apply to published modules.
Update rules of sec. 10 offer no such excuse. > In IETF-speak, that means an RFC. An Internet Draft > is a work-in-progress. We update the revision date every time > the module changes, but the numerous incremental changes > for a work-in-progress should not be recorded in the module > revision history. They should be recorded in the Change Log appendix. Revision numbers are critical for interoperability. If we want vendors to implement modules such as ietf-routing now, the revisions must be solid and reliable. > > I will try to make this procedure more clear in the YANG guidelines draft. I think it should be the other way around: YANG spec should not contain the update rules (because we all ignore them for I-D-based modules, right?), but the IETF guidelines should specify the policy you describe. Lada > > > > Lada > > > Andy > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
