Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints (fix draft address)

Hi Andy, > On Jan 19, 2024, at 12:17, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 9:02 AM Acee Lindem > wrote: >> Along the same lines, what is the sentiment for “mandatory true” data nodes >> for operational state (i.e., “config false” nodes)? Does this

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints

Hi Andy, > On Jan 19, 2024, at 12:17, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 9:02 AM Acee Lindem > wrote: >> Along the same lines, what is the sentiment for “mandatory true” data nodes >> for operational state (i.e., “config false” nodes)? Does this

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 9:02 AM Acee Lindem wrote: > Along the same lines, what is the sentiment for “mandatory true” data > nodes for operational state (i.e., “config false” nodes)? Does this make > sense to identify data nodes the must be returned if the parent node is > returned? > > What

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints

Along the same lines, what is the sentiment for “mandatory true” data nodes for operational state (i.e., “config false” nodes)? Does this make sense to identify data nodes the must be returned if the parent node is returned? Thanks Acee > On Dec 22, 2023, at 2:36 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder >

Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?

I think it is useful to discuss both: 1. Clarity on what is allowed vs not-allowed by the RFCs (BC vs NBC). There is sometimes a need to make a binary decision (e.g. tool output, or knowing whether to apply the new NBC tag from Module Versioning) 2. Doing changes in a way that has lower

Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 8:00 AM Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote: > A previous post about one of these cases is here: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/yQSrlqFnrMEibLwuzMkyWt63kXQ/ > > > > *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of *Jason Sterne > (Nokia) > *Sent:* Friday, January 19, 2024 9:16 AM >

Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?

A previous post about one of these cases is here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/yQSrlqFnrMEibLwuzMkyWt63kXQ/ From: netmod On Behalf Of Jason Sterne (Nokia) Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 9:16 AM To: Andy Bierman Cc: netmod@ietf.org; Italo Busi Subject: Re: [netmod] Is changing

Re: [netmod] RFC8526 (NETCONF NMDA) max-depth of 1

Sorry all - posted this to the wrong list. Will post in NETCONF. From: netmod On Behalf Of Jason Sterne (Nokia) Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 2:20 PM To: netmod@ietf.org Subject: [netmod] RFC8526 (NETCONF NMDA) max-depth of 1 Some people who received this message don't often get email from

Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?

Hi Andy, What you’re describing here is types of changes that could be less impactful in many cases than other types of changes. And I agree that many of the examples you show are likely low impact for clients, but most of them are still officially NBC by RFC7950 rules IMO. Please see inline.

Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?

Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 12:34 PM Jason Sterne (Nokia) 40nokia@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > Hi Italo, > > > > > > > > IMO RFC7950 Section 11 makes the second case NBC (and I remember it being > > confirmed on this list in the past). It may not turn out to be

Re: [netmod] Is changing the type with union a BC change?

Italo Busi 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 > } > >