On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > 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. > > I don't think it really addresses the design pattern very well. You want to claim that M and Q are both being developed at the same time, so it's OK that Q adds mandatory nodes to M. YANG has no such rule. YANG says a server can implement M and never implement Q. YANG says a server may implement M and then add Q in a future release. These conformance mechanisms do not align with your expectations of how YANG can/should be used. > Lada > > Andy > > > > 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
