On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 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 inappropriate > according 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. > > So there is choice between: (A) YANG 1.1 and SHOULD NOT (B) YANG 1.2 and SHOULD NOT (A) is acceptable. YANG 1.2 would create a false expectation in the user community that the IETF had improved the YANG language somehow. > Regards, > Reshad. > Andy > > Yet the WG continues to propose that these rules in RFC 7950 are purely > optional and can be ignored by > any 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
