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
