> On Sep 4, 2023, at 04:01, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: rtgwg <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem > <[email protected]> > Sent: 03 September 2023 22:16 > > For the ietf-vrrp.yang model, I’m updating the YANG model to correspond to > the terminology in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/. > > Will I have retain all the existing identities, types, leaves, and > notifications that include “master” in their identifiers and deprecate them? > There are about a dozen,,, > <tp> > When you deprecate them, I expect that they will still be there according to > the rules for updating YANG modules so you will have > identity vrrp-event-lower-priority-master { > alongside such as > identity vrrp-event-lower-priority-control { > which might not look very clear in five years time.
Right - but you mean vrrp-event-lower-priority-active… It would be great if we could just publish ietf-vrrp.yang without the identifiers using non-inclusive language and fix it in one shot (we classify it as a bug fix and be done with it). Unlike the VRRP MIB, I don’t think there is a lot of implementation traction. Thanks, Acee > > Tom Petch > > Thanks > Acee > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
