> On Apr 14, 2023, at 11:23 AM, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > IETF and vendor models are already doing NBC changes. The versioning work is > mostly just adding a way to indicate that to users/clients when it happens.
But with new versions of the complete model and not incremental augmentations - right? Although I haven’t looked at this for a long time, the YANG tooling will flag these as NBC Thanks, Acee > Jason > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 2:12 AM >> To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [netmod] Unknown bits - backwards compatibility >> >> >> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking >> links or >> opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 02:32:28PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >>> >>> I do not see any way to interpret RFC 7950 such that a YANG >>> extension can be added later to another document that overrides any >>> normative behavior defined in RFC 7950. >>> >>> So as long as a vendor wants to claim conformance to YANG 1.1, no >>> MUSTs in 7950 can be violated. Period. That may be harsh, but MUST >>> and MUST NOT work that way. >> >> +1 (even though we may be getting off topic here) >> >> /js >> >> -- >> Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
