> On Mar 29, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > If there is a solution that can handle multiple branches, then the > same solution should work for SDOs that choose to use only a single > branch. I do not see why a split is inevitable.
If a single solution works for both SDO and the vendor, that is great. And I think that was the point of the third bullet in the list I send. But that does mean the requirements of SDO and the vendor community cannot be different. There is a strong requirement that SDOs make NBC changes only on the most recent version of the YANG models. In the vendor community, NBC changes are going to be made on non-latest branches also. > > /js > > -- > 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/> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
