Add to that fact that there is the "YANG Modules Names” IANA Registry in RFC 6020 that we did not want to transfer to RFC 7950.
> On Mar 31, 2025, at 7:58 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Or, to give a slightly longer answer. > > It was intentional at the time that both 1 and 1.1 are valid and current > versions of the YANG language. I cannot recall the exact reasoning for this > decision at the time, but it is worth noting that a lot of YANG modules > (e.g., OpenConfig and some vendors models) still use RFC 6020 rather than RFC > 7950. > > Kind regards, > Rob > > > From: tom petch <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 31 March 2025 at 12:52 > To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: [netmod] Re: RFC7950 vs RFC6020 > > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > Sent: 20 March 2025 08:20 > > Shouldn't RFC7950 Obsolete or Update RFC6020? > > <tp> > No. > > Tom Petch > > (or at least not if you are an engineer - politicians may disagree:-( > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS* > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>_______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
