Hello Kent, Thanks for the thorough review and sorry for my absence and hence the earlier slow response.
See answer below as BALAZS4. Removed already agreed parts. What is the next step? Regards Balazs From: Kent Watsen <[email protected]> Sent: 2021. április 2., péntek 2:20 To: Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-10 Please see below for responses. (One question pending) Kent // shepherd On Mar 23, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Balázs Lengyel <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hello Kent, I am resuming my work on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format. Regards Balazs From: Kent Watsen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 2020. április 9., csütörtök 22:11 To: Balázs Lengyel <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [netmod] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-10 Hi Balazs, BTW, I assume that you wish to publish this as-is and follow-up later with an update to adjust for the “semver” work - correct? K. BALAZS4: Yes, correct. Semver will take time and may undergo changes, so it would be too early to adapt this draft/RFC to it. However, two items already deal with Semver: 1. The instance data files themselves will not have a Semver revision as the concept of compatibility is not defined for instance data. 2. The YANG module ietf-yang-instance-data already includes: “... If other methods (e.g., revision-label) are defined to identify individual module revisions those MAY be used instead of using a revision date.”
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
