As I pointed out at the mic @102 this requirement derives directly from the 1.x requirement of not changing the name of the module/namespace. If you allow for changing the namespace/module name for "major" (i.e., incompatible) changes (i.e., like today) then this 3.1 requirement goes away.
I think the plan is to reword some of these to get closer to the intention which I believe is to allow for smoother transition from one module to the next while making incompatible but mostly non-impacting changes. Thanks, Chris. Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes:
Hi, I strongly object to requirement 3.1: 3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to support existing clients in a backward compatible way. This is not what servers do today at all. They provide only one version of an implemented module, as specified in RFC 7950. It is a vendor and operator decision when to upgrade a server such that non-backward compatible changes are made. They must decide if/when it is ok based on the client applications in use. This requirement says you cannot make backward-incompatible changes which completely contradicts requirements 1.1 and 1.2. IMO requirement 3.1 should be removed, or change MUST to MAY Andy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod