On 4/12/2016 8:17 AM, Kyle Rose wrote: >> The IESG statement is worded poorly at best. It appears to me to imply >> "when picking between MIB and Netconf/YANG models, pick the latter". > > This is how I read it, as well. > >> An abstract API should never need to get into such a level of detail to >> require a particular implementation. If you're aiming for something >> beyond that, IMO the IETF is the wrong place (e.g., a better place would >> be POSIX). > > To this point, does it make sense to use a common implementation as an > illustration of how an abstract API might be implemented?
Not in an RFC, IMO. Doing so sets details of the interface in stone, whether by declaration or implication. If you can't do it without that sort of example, IMO you have not succeeded in the "abstract" part of an abstract API. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
