My problem is that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.21.2 does not say for a deprecated schema part "the old definition has been kept" as you say. It only says for deprecated "it permits new/continued implementation". The word "permit" only allows keeping the deprecated schema parts, it does not mandate, does not even encourage the implementer to keep the deprecated part. regards Balazs (BY node I meant network node a.k.a. netconf sever. Sorry my sloppy wording.) On 2017-07-17 13:23, Juergen
Schoenwaelder wrote:
Page 8) "(c) For published models, the model should be republished with an NMDA-compatible structure, deprecating non-NMDA constructs."RFC7950 is very vague about what deprecated means (IMHO this is a problem in the RFC). "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits new/continued implementation" This does mean the fully functional implementation MUST still be in place, it allows a node to remove it. If we allow a node to remove e.g. /interfaces-state that is a problem. What do we really mean in this case? We better state it explicitly.The plan I think is to revise the core modules as soon as we get to it. Not sure what you mean with 'node' above. Deprecated means that there is a new definition that should be implemented/used but the old definition has been kept to allow for a smooth transition. /js -- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. Senior Specialist Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected] |
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
