I’m not sure how the concerns about non-backwards-compatibility are addressed
by YANG library. Both Rob and I were proposing that one potential solution is
to always send all the bits in the 2nd leaf (even after they become “known
bits” in the first leaf).
From: Kent Watsen
Sent: Wednesday,
Hi Jeff,
I’ve been hoping you would reply to some of the comments here before kicking
off the WGLC. Specifically, I’m wondering if it makes sense to add a new
section to provide guidance to implementors? I’m unsure myself, as the
concerns raised seem to be addressed by YANG Library, in that
Thanks Qin,
In line...
Adrian
== Discussion ==
Section 7.
I'm not completely comfortable with the way you use the base identity
node-tag-type to capture the variants defined in the IANA registry shown in
9.2. What happens when another document defines a new IETF tag type?
Is it necessary to
NETMOD WG,
The *draft* agenda for IETF117 has been posted
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/agenda
The NETMOD session information is scheduled to be held:
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
09:30-11:30 Tuesday Session I
Room: Continental 6
Tom, you’re arguing our case. The requirements specifically state that modules
do and need to be updated sometimes in NBC ways. The idea of this work is not
to make perfection the enemy of good.
Joe
From: tom petch
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 08:01
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , Benoit
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 27 June 2023 14:19
Yes, I had pushed for this. I think it would have help better frame this work
given how long it is taking.
Yes but had the then I-D been put forward as WGLC, I would have opposed it. I
think that the I-D overstates the case. Modules have
