I think we need something. BTW I'm fine with obsoletes ;-)
On 1/23/2017 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Lou,
>
> RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020.
>
> In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but
> that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time
On 1/23/2017 5:26 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton wrote:
I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly:
Old:
The interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above
following a backslash is undefined. Authors are
Lou,
RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020.
In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but
that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time and now it is too
late to put it in.
I suggest to leave it alone. People who simply google 'yang rfc' will
hopefully find
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly:
>
> Old:
>
> The interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above
> following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using
> such
I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly:
Old:
The interpretation of any *other character then* the ones listed above
following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using
such backslash sequences in double-quoted strings in their YANG
modules.
New:
The
On 1/23/2017 4:33 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Benoit Claise wrote:
On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Benoit Claise wrote:
> On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder
On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
Benoit,
RFC 6020
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>>
>>> Benoit,
>>>
>>> RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>
> > Benoit,
> >
> > RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for
> > YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> Benoit,
>
> RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for
> YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous
> character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done).
>
> YANG
On 1/23/2017 11:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Benoit,
RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for
YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous
character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done).
YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in
Hi,
I agree with what Juergen writes below.
Also, if we *really* wanted to change RFC 6020 in this regard (which I
don't think we should!), I think the change should be the equivalent
of Y06-01:
Clarify that "\x" means the two characters '\' and 'x', i.e.,
"\x" is equivalent to '\x'.
Benoit,
RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for
YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous
character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done).
YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YANG 1 but backporting this fix to
YANG 1 is a change
14 matches
Mail list logo