On Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 11:23:55 AM EDT, Andy Bierman
<a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> wrote:
WG,
Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in the
following poll:
- https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll (Datatracker login required)
The draft proposed to change many specific MUST and MUST NOT requirements to
MAY ignore.It has been pointed out that the correct change would be SHOULD NOT
and the use of MAY is inappropriateaccording to the definitions in RFC
2119.<RR> I thought the authors had agreed on SHOULD NOT (instead of MAY), but
I don't recall if this was just in the weekly calls or actually communicated to
the wg alias.
Regards,Reshad.
Yet the WG continues to propose that these rules in RFC 7950 are purely
optional and can be ignored byany implementation that chooses to do so.
Of course rules that affect backward compatibility and stability do not affect
the code that compiles a module.They only affect the client code that attempts
to use the unstable server code.
Kent and Lou
Andy
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
