Hi, I don't know what it means to "accept" NBC changes. I agree this is a deviation that could be documented somehow.
Andy On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:47 PM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > *From: *netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' < > a...@yumaworks.com> > *Date: *Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 9:59 PM > *To: *Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> > *Cc: *NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> wrote: > > > Hi Andy, > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > BTW, I do not support adoption of the requirements document at all. > > Can you say why? Is it a blanket statement about adopting requirements > drafts in general, or something specific to this draft. > > > > Because they just waste time. > > They are mostly reverse engineered from the desired solution (by the > authors). > > > > <RR> I don’t think we’re tied to the solution of semver or modified semver > (speaking for myself at least). The main question on the requirements is > whether NBC changes should be accepted. Many people seem to think so, if > you don’t agree that’s fine, but I disagree with the claim that the > requirements are reverse engineered from the solution, I believe the design > team has strived to separate the 2. > > > > Reshad. > > > > We end up having the same debates twice. > > > > It is usually worse then that, since you end up debating the wording in > the requirements > > instead of the merits of the solution-in-progress (considering all factors > and readjusted requirements). > > > > > > Kent > > > > Andy > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
