Hi Chris,
We made this change in -41.
Thanks,
Acee
On 10/8/19, 6:14 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
should have read "or it supports more than 32"
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 5:53 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> This strikes me as one of these artificial limits that gains us almost
should have read "or it supports more than 32"
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 5:53 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> This strikes me as one of these artificial limits that gains us almost
> nothing (what if the platform supports less than 32 or it supports 32?), and
> creates these backward incompatible
This strikes me as one of these artificial limits that gains us almost nothing
(what if the platform supports less than 32 or it supports 32?), and creates
these backward incompatible YANG issues (ranges that have to change) that are
part of what is driving the complexity in the YANG versioning
Hi Adam,
Thanks for review.
On 10/2/19, 6:31 PM, "Adam Roach via Datatracker" wrote:
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-40: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-40: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
