Hello NETMOD WG,
We've had a poll going for a few weeks to determine if we require YANG 1.2 for
allowing ("SHOULD NOT") NBC changes (see "Poll on YANG Versioning NBC
Approach").
As part of that, some discussion has happened on the list around potentially
doing an errata for RFC7950/6020 or a bis of 7950/6020 (if rough consensus is
reached for option 1 of the poll)
7-8 of us discussed this in the YANG Versioning weekly call group today.
First of all: this question of mechanics (errata vs bis vs Module Versioning
draft) is orthogonal to the poll. Let's first and separately resolve the poll
and confirm if we need YANG 1.2 or not (that's the fundamental question the
poll is resolving - everything else is a subsequent issue to be discussed).
We'll let the chairs confirm when/if rough consensus on the poll has been
reached.
But *if* the answer to the poll is option 1, then the weekly call group was
unanimous that we should not do an errata for RFC7950/6020 and we should not do
a 7950/6020 bis. We should just continue with the Module Versioning draft which
will update 7950 and 6020.
The primary reason is that we shouldn't just change MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT
without also tying it together with the mandatory top level
rev:non-backwards-compatible extension when an NBC change is done. Changing the
NBC rule to SHOULD NOT needs to be in the same RFC as the mandatory
rev:non-backwards-compatible tag.
Other reasons:
* an errata probably isn't correct since this isn't fixing an intent that
was present back when 7950 was written (it was clearly the intent at the time
to block NBC changes)
* a bis would be odd without actually introducing other changes to YANG and
changing the version (this discussion is all based on "if the answer to the
poll is option 1")
Jason (he/him)
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
