On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 18:12 +0800, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may > not is not good enough as a contract for the management client. My > problem is that the current solution is just not good enough. IMHO we > need to change it.
I agree. My observation has been that the YANG contract is often interpreted in a very server-centric way: clients just have to be prepared to any surprises. (This reminds me of the contracts I have with insurance companies.) Yet I think it is quite important to also support dumb clients that are written to do some job, and may easily break if a node suddenly disappears. Lada > > Even after semver you can still obsolete the old stuff and provide the > new stuff with a new name, although that might not be the common > practice. Which is a good thing, as I believe it is sometimes better to > correct existing definitions then to replace them. > > regards Balazs > > > On 2017-11-15 16:53, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Exactly. With the current solution, the sever can still implement the > > deprecated or obsolete nodes in order to support old clients. > > > > With a MAJOR update in a semver world, it means that the old nodes are > > removed (or rather, possibly, that the old nodes have new syntax > > and/or semantics). > > > > > > > > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
