Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:17:46PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > No. I do not agree that the MUST in RFC 7950 can be removed. > > > I do not agree the architecture should update YANG at all. > > OK. > > I am with Andy here. <running> has always had the requirement to be > valid and we are not supposed to change that. Mechanisms for inactive > configuration or templating must be designed to be backwards compatible > I think.
Ok. If we keep the requirement that <running> in itself must be valid, it just restricts the usefulness/expressiveness of inactive and template mechanisms, but it might be ok. I think that even w/o this requirement, the observable behavior for a client can be backwards compatible. For example, suppose we have an inactive access control rule that refers to a non-existing interface in <running>. If a client that doesn't know anything about inactive asks for the contents of <running>, our implementation removes the inactive nodes from the reply to the client. Only a client that opts-in to inactive will receive a reply with things that looks invalid if you don't take the inactive annotation into account. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
