Hi Mahesh, any thoughts on these? I'm trying to apply all verified/HDU errata to the yang2 doc before the window closes...
Kent > On Jun 8, 2026, at 10:52 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh - thanks for looking at this so quickly! > > >>> https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid7021 >> >> Reject: > > Agreed. Also note that YANG-next Issue #75 > <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/75> seeks to remove the > `revision-date` statement altogether. Rob's "yang-next-agreement" document > concurs <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/75>. > > >>> https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid8784 >> >> HDU: > > Actually, I'd consider Reject. > > YANG validation happens each time <intended> changes. The validation is > conceptually holistic, and not sensitive to what the datastore had previously. > > I think that the RFC 7950 text is being misinterpreted. When writing "is > removed", I think the text only means in the context of the example, and not > specifically pointing to datastore per/post states. > Besides, the paragraph the sentence is added to regards schema, not data, yet > the sentence regards data. Even if it were an important clarification, it's > on the wrong paragraph. > > > > Kent // contributor > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
