Hi Robert, Thanks for putting the minutes together.
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 1:43 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > > - These was agreement that IETF models should be limited to a linear > revision history, with changes only in the most recent revision. It was > agreed that in some cases it is necessary to make NBC changes (in a new most > recent revision) in IETF YANG modules to fix bugs. > > - There was discussion that an applicability statement could be added, > or some of the requirements could be split between SDO vs Vendor > requirements, but there did not seem to be strong consensus either for or > against this change. In anything, there seemed to be a slight preference to > trying not to make this split. > > - It was agreed that YANG should have a single versioning scheme that > is capable of covering both SDO requirements and vendor requirements. There > was agreement that guidelines text could be used to provide guidance on how > IETF models should be versioned. The combination of these bullet items, and maybe other bullet items does not make clear if there was any consensus in allowing (or maybe even preventing) vendors from using a versioning system to keep track of NBC changes on other (non-latest) branches of the model. I think I heard from multiple vendors (outside of this meeting) that making NBC changes was needed on the non-latest branches, whatever IETF or other SDOs decide. Has that sentiment changed? If it is the case, the split between the requirements of SDO and the vendors is inevitable. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
