Hi, I do not think any new YANG guidelines need to be added to the already completed rfc8407bis. This is a design decision based on the intended reuse of the groupings.
Here is a common sense guideline: Document the grouping reuse limitations in the description-stmt. Andy On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:02 AM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can folks please chime in on this discussion to help bring it to a close? > > I rescinded my AUTH48 “approval” for the tcp-client-server draft pending > the outcome of this discussion. > > PS: I see that Thomas CC-ed NETMOD, which makes sense given a potential > update to rfc8407bis. > > Kent > > > On Sep 18, 2024, at 2:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Dear Kent, Andy and Alex, > > I think Alex statement > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5Yaiom0B0lDTeSPOvgNfPIEFvBw/, > Andy's feedback and guidelines in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.4 resp. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15#section-4.4 > makes perfectly sense and I don't see why we should do else. As an > author, I suggest to add in section 4 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis based > on the conclusion of this discussion guidelines on reusable YANG groupings. > > Best wishes > Thomas > > *From:* Kent Watsen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:12 AM > *To:* Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server groupings > > *Be aware:* This is an external email. > > Hi Andy, > > > The main purpose for YANG defaults is ease of use. > If there are less things to configure then the device is easier to use. > Without a default port then this parameter becomes mandatory to configure. > > > Alex is trying to maximize lazy binding. That is, as a general statement, > unless > 100% sure, groupings should never specify the “default” or “mandatory” > statements, leaving it to terminal “uses” statements to specify. His > comment raises to the level of something that could be an addition to > rfc8407bis. > > Thoughts? > > Kent > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
