On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:32:15PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
wrote:
> One key example is this: 7950 says that adding another enum to an
> enumeration leaf is NBC (and that applies to state). But that may not really
> be how most implementations would want to treat state. Would we really want
> to flag a module as non backwards compatible when a state leaf gets an
> additional enum? Wouldn't that create a lot of unnecessary noise?
I read this in RFC 7950:
o An "enumeration" type may have new enums added, provided the old
enums's values do not change. Note that inserting a new enum
before an existing enum or reordering existing enums will result
in new values for the existing enums, unless they have explicit
values assigned to them.
What do you want this to change to?
/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/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
