Hi Kent, On 9/7/17, 3:30 PM, "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Acee, > >> Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes. > >Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's? >I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on >these nmda-update drafts. I would hope this is not a prerequisite? We are evaluating how bad this will be. I’d ask how many implementations there are of ietf-routing? > >> However, what about secondary and tertiary implications of moving to >> NDMA? If we change a path from “interface-state-ref” to “interface-ref” >> to reference an interface, I’d hope no one would expect the old >> statement to be kept around… > >But the old statement would be kept around, in its deprecated form. >Of course, the nmda-guidelines should cause those downstream modules >to be updated to NMDA as well, so hopefully just a short-lived issue. This could be really ugly and cascade if we are just using a different path for a reference. Hopefully, all the old references are in deprecated trees. Otherwise, I guess the new data leaf would need a unique name. Thanks, Acee > >Kent > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
