This was my thought as well, that it would be best to have the smallest-possible draft update 6020/7950. That way, when someone follows the “Updated” links, they’re not overloaded with material that could’ve been left out.
Jason was saying that just doing MUST/SHOULD by alone isn’t great, that at least the "rev:non-backwards-compatible” extension statement should be included and, by extension I suppose, the rules for editing the revision history. Presumably revision labels could be left out. IDK what minimal is possible. K. // contributor > On Sep 27, 2023, at 7:06 PM, Rodney Cummings > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is easy to write a short RFC updating RFC 7950, changing one sentence >> from MUST to SHOULD. > > I agree. I found that I cannot enter a response to the poll, because I > disagree with both Option 1 and Option 2. > > My concern is that there are many people out there who are implementing YANG, > but who do not follow discussions on this mailing list. I'm concerned that > there is a serious risk that those people will interpret the change from MUST > to SHOULD as "backward compatibility is irrelevant for YANG". We all know > that the concern is about bug fixes and so on, but without explaining that in > a short and focused manner (i.e., the short RFC described above), that will > be lost in the noise of the larger draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning > change. > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning is a great draft, but I think it > should move forward as an independent RFC, distinct from the MUST/SHOULD > change. > > Rodney Cummings > > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On > Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 5:24 PM > To: Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG Versioning: discussion around 7950 bis or errata > (from Key Issue #1) > > It is easy to write a short RFC updating RFC 7950, changing one sentence from > MUST to SHOULD. This is inline with the goal to not change the language, > i.e., to keep the version numbers. > > /js > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 03:00:19PM +0000, Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote: >> 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.i/ >> etf.org >> <http://etf.org/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetmod&data=05%7C01%7C%7C22464d2aa09441 >> f1b1bd08dbbedf65ad%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638313 >> 638956186415%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luM >> zIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DgsZVlBTQtqJjR >> tVXs%2Bze%2BrOanijgDEuCn93gbN9Jyw%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- > 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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
