On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > So perhaps the proposal is to add > > > > > > After applying all deviations announced by a server, in any order, > > > the resulting data model MUST still be valid. > > > > > > just before the beginning of section 7.20.3.1? > > > > I like to see whether we have consensus to add this clarifying > > sentence. I believe it documents something that we always assumed to > > be true but we did not write it down explicitly. If anyone disagrees > > with adding this clarification, please speak up now. > > > > I have not heard anyone disagreeing with adding this clarification. > > Martin did not put this additional sentence into -12 and since we seem > to have consensus on adding this clarification I like to ask him to > add this sentence if another revision is made before the IESG > telechat. I am CCing Benoit in case he wants to add this as a comment > to his IESG evaluation record. > > Was it unclear before that the result of deviations were allowed to be invalid? I do not object to this text, but I hope those 3 words "in any order" are enough of a clue to developers that on the server "only one wins" but the client does not know which one. I will add a YANG guideline to avoid duplicate deviation targets. (issue #33) /js > > Andy > -- > 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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
