On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:05 AM Martin Björklund wrote:
> Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> >
> Hmm, I don't remember why this was changed in RFC 8525. Perhaps this
> was by accident? The only text I can find is this in RFC 7950:
>
>
Not by accident.
I did not want the new list.
The main rationale
+ netmod WG, and YANG Drs.
Widening scope to gather more opinions.
So far, we have some opinions that are proto adding such IANA managed modules.
However, thers have raised concerns at transferring full ownership/control to
IANA -- especially when mapping from IANA Identifiers to string based
YANG Versioning Weekly Call Minutes - 2022-05-17
We further discussed the use of per-element NBC/BC marking:
- mixing a lot of detailed per-element history in a module may not be as clean
as keeping it as "the current API"
- in some more extreme cases, could end up with a module that is more
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:05 AM Martin Björklund wrote:
> Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On May 18, 2022, at 2:05 AM, Martin Björklund
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> PS: the answer to this impacts the "crypto-types and friends" drafts
> > >> in the NETCONF WG, where it is assumed (and various
Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> > On May 18, 2022, at 2:05 AM, Martin Björklund
> > wrote:
> >
> >> PS: the answer to this impacts the "crypto-types and friends" drafts
> >> in the NETCONF WG, where it is assumed (and various tools agreed, sans
> >> a recent change in `yanglint`) that the
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:52 PM Jan Lindblad wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
> A server can support a module without any protocol-accessible objects in 3
> ways
>- implement the module with no features supported
>- implement the module with features supported
>- import the module without
