Italo,
Yes, this too would be BC according to the rules. There may be some situations
where this kind of change might be disruptive in the real world, however, for
example if you did this to a list key.
Best Regards,
/jan
> Thanks Jan
>
> Following the same logic, also the following change can be considered BC:
>
> OLD
> type foo;
>
> NEW
> type union {
> type foo;
> type bar
> }
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>
> Thanks again
>
> Italo
>
> From: Jan Lindblad <[email protected]>
> Sent: giovedì 18 gennaio 2024 10:33
> To: Italo Busi <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?
>
> Italo,
>
> Yes, in my judgement this change should be considered BC according to YANG
> rules.
>
> Note that the BC concept is a sort of *agreement* between client and server
> implementors that determines what kind of changes a) are allowed + b) have to
> be tolerated. Even when things are BC, that does not guarantee that things
> will always keep interoperating properly.
>
> Best Regards,
> /jan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2024, at 23:22, Italo Busi <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I have some questions/doubts about whether changing a type with union is a BC
> or NBC change
>
> For example, is the following change a BC or NBC change?
>
> OLD
> type union {
> type foo;
> type bar
> }
>
> NEW
> type union {
> type foo;
> type bar;
> type baz
> }
>
> Section 11 of RFC7950 is silent on this case although this change is
> expanding the allowed value space and therefore it looks like a BC change
>
> Thanks, Italo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
