On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:18:42AM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > > [as a contributor] > > Hi Andy, > > I’m struggling a bit to understand what is motivating you to ask this > question. That is, as a tool vendor, I wouldn’t think that any decision > made here would affect you immediately. My expectations are that any impact > to YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF would be backwards compatible, such that > implementations would only opt-in when needed - a pay as you grow strategy. > But herein perhaps lies an unstated requirement, that the impact to > YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF needs to be backwards compatible with respect to > existing deployments. Did we miss it or is it too obvious? >
It may be obvious for many of us but for the sake of completeness I prefer to have this backwards compatibility assumption explicitely stated. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
