On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I strongly object to requirement 3.1: > > > > > > 3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to > > support existing clients in a backward compatible way. > > > > > > > > This is not what servers do today at all. > > They provide only one version of an implemented module, as specified in > RFC > > 7950. > > But today a backwards incompatible change leads to a new module and > you can very well implement two modules if that is reasonable to do in > order to allow clients a transition period. > But you can tell the 2 subtrees apart this way. If I change /foo from a container to a list, then how do you support both implementations of container /foo and list /foo at the same time? > > /js > Andy > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
