> On 09 Sep 2015, at 17:25, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > On 07/09/2015 18:41, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> Your example shows the YANG conformance problems fairly well. >> Clearly the IETF (and others) want to use advanced design patterns >> in which conformance to the base module (M) is insufficient to describe >> the actual API requirements. >> >> YANG uses revision dates to identify versions. >> There is no such thing as a major vs. minor revision. >> I agree with Lada that it is possible to have major revision update >> where the old clients should not be used anymore. >> >> I already suggested relaxing the MUST NOT to a SHOULD NOT, >> wrt/ adding mandatory nodes. > I support that - it seems to strike the right pragmatic balance to me.
I support that, too. Lada > > Thanks, > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
