> On Aug 26, 2015:8:09 AM, at 8:09 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor
>>>>>>> models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that
>>>>>>> a group of people "really like it" some other way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm equally unsure that having an argument of "I got there first" is a
>>>>>> compelling argument given the number of folks (including vendors) who
>>>>>> have stated willingness (or even support) for change. I think having
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> major class of users stand up and say this is important should garner
>>>>>> some notice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please keep in mind that we are talking about several published
>>>>> proposed standards that have been implemented and deployed. I think
>>>>> there must be convincing technical reasons to declare them broken and
>>>>> to redo them.
>>>>
>>>> Other than adding /device at the top, we are not obsoleting RFC
>>>> 7223.
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense. The YANG model is the contract. You are
>>> proposing changing the contract. The fact is that you will be
>>> obsoleting 7223 (and the other RFCs). Existing devices and
>>> applications will have to change in order to handle this new top-level
>>> node (which will be in some other namespace I presume, unless your
>>> proposal is one gigantic monolithic model).
>>>
>>>
>>> /martin
>>
>> Again I will ask: why is this bad?
>
> My point above was in reply to the statement that "we are not
> obsoleting RFC 7223" [because the change is so small?] - you would in
> fact be obsoleting the model in 7223.
>
>
> /martin
The flip side to this is that while you evolve the model
in 7223, you evolve it rapidly and to conform to the newer model(s).
The older model does actually still exist, and if we have a way to
refer back to it its not really obsolete; its just an older revision.
—Tom
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
