Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

Thank you, Rob. Best regards, Alexei Sadovnikov Principal System Architect Business Solutions AT&T Business AT&T Services, Inc. 550 Cochituate Road, Framingham, MA 01701 m 781.249.1516 | o 781.249.1516 | as5...@att.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

Andy, The errata form specifically describes submission of RFC 2119 keywords: > Technical – error in the technical content (Note that changes in the usage of > RFC 2119 keywords are considered technical.) So, it is definitively something which is appropriate to raise errata to. I have already

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

Randy, I definitively see that point, and the line of sparing usage can be somewhat subjective. In this case, I think use of “MUST” is justified RFC 2119 “actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm” . Missing “MUST” statement does leave it

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:14 PM SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI wrote: > Andy, > > > > The errata form specifically describes submission of RFC 2119 keywords: > > > > > *Technical* – error in the technical content (Note that changes in the > usage of RFC 2119 keywords are considered technical.) > > > > So, it

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:54 AM Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > This seems like a remarkably pointless change, and arguably > at odds with section 6 of RFC 2119. ("Imperatives of the type > defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly.") > > +1 I

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

Hi, I basically agree with Kent, Randy, Andy. Alexi, Thanks for flagging this, and the subsequent discussion. I can see your point of view that MUST is used in other similar places, and I'm sure that in hindsight it would be nice if the language was used consistently in equivalent places. Ho

[netmod] [Errata Rejected] RFC7950 (6855)

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7950, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6855 -- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Repor

[netmod] YANG Versioning Weekly Call Minutes - 2022-02-22

YANG Versioning Weekly Call Minutes - 2022-02-22 Reshad & Jason looked at Bo's PR for issues #105/#125. After Reshad approves, Bo to go ahead and merge in. We further discussed optional modules in packages (i.e. API Packages vs Implementation Packages). - allow "down rev" of an optional module

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

Move to close this Errata without accepting it. Kent // as co-chair > On Feb 17, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Randy Presuhn > wrote: > > Hi - > > On 2022-02-17 1:01 PM, SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI wrote: >> Randy, >> I definitively see that point, and the line of sparing usage can be somewhat >> subjective.