On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:45 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:31:58AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > > > I also note that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-02 states: > > > > This document updates [RFC7950] section 11. Section 3 describes > > modifications to YANG revision handling and update rules, and > > Section 4 describes a YANG extension statement to do import by > > derived revision. > > > > So, I'm still of the opinion that clarifying this behaviour in > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-02, if the proposed change cannot > be accepted as a verified errata, is a pragmatic solution. > > > > This document has a long way to go. I am not sure everybody agrees > with changing YANG 1.1 rules by an update (without changing YANG's > version number, i.e., it becomes upclear which rules apply to a given > YANG module). > > I do not think an update of any kind can brush aside MUST and MUST NOT details in the updated RFC. It has also been established that YANG extensions are optional for a YANG 1.1 tool and MAY be skipped and ignored, so a new YANG language version cannot be introduced through the use of external statements. We have not seen any demand whatsoever for "NBC automation tools". Violations of sec. 11 rules are rare (and I prefer to keep them that way). In any event, it would require a new YANG version to undo the YANG 1.1 update rules. /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 > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
