On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 01:32:19PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v St 06. 09. 2017 v 13:10 +0200: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:34:33AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > I would prefer if it status was inherited (as an errata to 6020, 7950). > > > > Erratas are not a tool to change a specification. You have to write > > and RFC that updates 6020 and 7950 in order to change what these RFCs > > say. This requires full WG / IETF consensus since the change affects > > implementations. > > A current node with a deprecated ancestor doesn't make sense, so it > looks like an omission. IMO, a technical erratum is then > appropriate.
You can make status work recursively via an erratum. It clearly does not work recursively in the YANG specifications. And as explain before, given that we have augmentations, current definitions below deprecated definitions cannot be avoided. /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
