Hi, My concern is that the definition of <running> is being changed to include undefined and undeclared proprietary extensions. This is counter-productive to the IETF's stated goal of interoperability.
Andy On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC > > > 7950. > > > > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a > > > standards > > > > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, > > > > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. > > > > > > > > > > RFC 8174: > > > > > > o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not > > > required. Specifically, normative text does not require the use > > > of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency > > > when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not > > > use them and is still normative. > > > > > > > > So what? > > Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms. > > This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case. > > Actually, section 5.1 XPath Context in the revised datastore draft > uses the same language as section 6.4.1 XPath Context in RFC 7950. In > fact, the text in the draft is copied (and adjusted) from RFC 7950. > > > /martin >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
