Balazs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> wrote: > The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may > not is not good enough as a contract for the management client. My > problem is that the current solution is just not good enough. IMHO we > need to change it.
Note that if a server implements version 1 of a module, and then the module doesn't change, but the server in the next sw version drops support for the module, the client will also be unhappy. We (the IETF) can't have rules for these kinds of things. > Even after semver you can still obsolete the old stuff and provide the > new stuff with a new name, although that might not be the common > practice. Which is a good thing, as I believe it is sometimes better > to correct existing definitions then to replace them. But you still want to require servers to implement even obsolete nodes? /martin > > regards Balazs > > > On 2017-11-15 16:53, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Exactly. With the current solution, the sever can still implement the > > deprecated or obsolete nodes in order to support old clients. > > > > With a MAJOR update in a semver world, it means that the old nodes are > > removed (or rather, possibly, that the old nodes have new syntax > > and/or semantics). > > > > > > > > -- > Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. > Senior Specialist > Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: balazs.leng...@ericsson.com > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
