Hi Kent, Even though we are debating/discussing whether iETF moduels should use YANG semver (aka modified semver), please note that there is interest from other publishers of YANG modules to use semver or YANG semver.
Regarding your comment below, is it specific to IETF modules or more general? I don’t think the “semver" label has been fully justified relative to the disruption I perceive it may cause. Regards, Reshad. From: Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> Date: Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:49 PM To: Martin Björklund <mbj+i...@4668.se> Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements [I’ve scanned the entire thread before circling back to respond to this message] Martin writes: I can reluctantly accept that modified smever is published as Experimental. But that doesn't mean that IETF modules should use it. I assume Martin’s reference to Experimental follows my adoption-call comment here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/uZZqBs1yK0EpbXgRJRFQihHWo5s/ Changing the "Intended Status” for an adopted document is easily done at any time before publication. PS: Andy didn’t participate in the call, though he appears to be coming in strong now... Kent
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
