On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:11:36AM +0000, Mohideen, Kaja (Nokia - IN/Chennai) wrote: > 1/ I understand that clients may/may-not be yang aware, not using > hello/yang-lib and may have hard-coded requests, response processing to get > its job done using the server. Such a client when encountering ‘unknown’ > nodes can either fail or ignore those nodes. It’s the client choice. But, > with expanded range of ‘enum and bits’, there is no choice but to fail as the > ‘value’ is now unknown. OK. >
I do not agree that an expanded value space necessarily implies that clients have to fail. > 2/ If I understand right, RFC 7950 – Section 11 is talking about ways to > update yang module so the existing data in the server doesn’t gets > invalidated. That’s why the new data definition to be optional or conditional > using if-feature. Not about clients at all. Thank you for making this clear. > Shouldn’t the RFC text capture this so readers are informed? > The update rules defined in Section 11 try to guarantee that server updates do not break existing clients. This requires that clients play nicely with data that they do not understand and it requires that updates are done in a way to maintain backwards compatibility with existing clients. I wonder what makes you believe this would be different. I am trimming the CC list since we already concluded that this is not an errata. /js -- Jürgen Schönwälder 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
