On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:55:32PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > I don't think this errata should be accepted. As stated, the spec is > unclear, and YANG 1.1 has fixed this problem. But it is not clear > that the original intention when RFC 6020 was written was #1. > Accepting this errata now would make existing implementations and > modules invalid. >
+1 And I note that this is inline with the discussions we had when YANG 1.1 was put together. We should not waste cycles rehashing issues. /js -- 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
