On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:18:15AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> > > So perhaps the proposal is to add > >> > > > >> > > After applying all deviations announced by a server, in any order, > >> > > the resulting data model MUST still be valid. > >> > > > >> > > just before the beginning of section 7.20.3.1? > >> > > >> > I like to see whether we have consensus to add this clarifying > >> > sentence. I believe it documents something that we always assumed to > >> > be true but we did not write it down explicitly. If anyone disagrees > >> > with adding this clarification, please speak up now. > >> > > >> > >> I have not heard anyone disagreeing with adding this clarification. > >> > >> Martin did not put this additional sentence into -12 and since we seem > >> to have consensus on adding this clarification I like to ask him to > >> add this sentence if another revision is made before the IESG > >> telechat. I am CCing Benoit in case he wants to add this as a comment > >> to his IESG evaluation record. > >> > >> > > Was it unclear before that the result of deviations were allowed to be > > invalid? > > Right, I think it goes pretty much without saying, so this sentence is > IMO unnecessary. >
Apparently, this was not clear to every reader and hence the proposal to add this sentence in order to make this explicit. /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
