The only references to RFC 5277 in the YANG 1.1 specification I found refers to the <notification> element. I do not see anything broken or worth fixing.
/js On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:22:22PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > if NETCONF WG moves away from RFC 5277, what does it mean for YANG? In my > opinion, we have two options: > > 1. remove references to 5277 from the YANG spec and define a notification > as any data sent asynchronously by the server, or > > 2. generalize even more and treat a particular notification as just > another type of data tree. > > BTW, the Terminology section in RFC 7950 doesn't contain a definition of > a notification (unlike pretty much everything else). Is it just an > omission or was it intentional? > > Lada > > -------------------- Start of forwarded message -------------------- > From: "Mehmet Ersue" <[email protected]> > To: "'Netconf'" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:06:14 +0100 > Subject: [Netconf] New Notification and Subscription Features WASFW: 3 > Options for Subscription & Event Notification draft structure > > ... > > B) NETCONF co-chairs further propose that NETCONF WG should use its energy > in the future to complete and improve the new notification and subscription > RFCs and stop maintaining RFC 5277 for issues other than errata. Note that > it is required that RFC 5277 and all new work needs to gracefully co-exist > in any deployment. > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- 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
