[All, don’t forget to vote, discussion here doesn’t count!
https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll]
> On Sep 12, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> So there is choice between:
>
> (A) YANG 1.1 and SHOULD NOT
> (B) YANG 1.2 and SHOULD NOT
Thanks Andy, this is a succinct way
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Reshad Rahman wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 11:23:55 AM EDT, Andy Bierman <
> a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 11:23:55 AM EDT, Andy Bierman
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen wrote:
WG,
Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in the
following poll:
- https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll (Datatracker
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kent Watsen wrote:
> WG,
>
> Please help the YANG-versioning effort move forward by participating in
> the following poll:
>
> - https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll (Datatracker login
> required)
>
>
The draft proposed to change many specific MUST and
Dne 12. 09. 23 v 14:43 Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) napsal(a):
Jürgen, all,
I see the irony in changing the YANG RFC(s) without updating the YANG language
version number, but digging a bit deeper, I think the question is not as
clear-cut as it might seem at first.
Altering the contents of the
Hi Jürgen,
Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod On Behalf Of Jürgen
> Schönwälder
> Sent: 12 September 2023 14:11
> To: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Poll on YANG Versioning NBC Approach
>
> The two options mix things
The two options mix things together. Option 1 says updating YANG 1 and
YANG 1.1 to allow YANG modules to be modified _based on
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning_ but this document has much
more in it than just changing a MUST to SHOULD.
There are features in
Further to Jan's comments, given that all organizations (vendors, SDOs, and
industry consortia) producing YANG modules all occasionally update then in NBC
ways to fix bugs and issues, then I presume that all pragmatic YANG tooling is
obliged to handle cases where modules change in NBC ways.
Jürgen, all,
I see the irony in changing the YANG RFC(s) without updating the YANG language
version number, but digging a bit deeper, I think the question is not as
clear-cut as it might seem at first.
Altering the contents of the backwards-compatibility section of RFC 6020 (sec
10) and RFC
Versioning people told me that the version numbers follows from the
kind of changes made. If true, then discussing the version number
first is backwards.
/js
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:59:45AM +, Jason Sterne (Nokia) wrote:
> Hi Jurgen,
>
> We need this poll to set fundamental direction in
Hi Jurgen,
We need this poll to set fundamental direction in the WG. Yes, there will still
be discussion & debate around *either* option once we select one. But we need
to agree on whether we're moving ahead by updating YANG 1.0/YANG 1.1 (without
requiring any sort of new YANG version number)
Hi all,
I'd encourage anyone to remind themselves of some of the details around this
issue before answering the poll.
Summary of options by the YANG Versioning weekly call group:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MSjLKSy7PwjaDkJdnwKREY9KCbc/
IETF 117 NETMOD meeting recording (YANG
Hi Lou,
Yes, it is totally appropriate that we revisit this guidance. A lot has been
learned in the five years since 8407 and the long list of updates already in
this draft show that there is work to be done.
Adopt and work.
Cheers,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: netmod On Behalf Of
13 matches
Mail list logo
