ithub should be considered, along with
> trying to clean up the documents, e.g., moving the NETCONF protocol specific
> parts out of the base YANG spec, moving the XML encoding into its own
> separate document.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
> > -Original Message-
: Andy Bierman
> Cc: NetMod WG
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-
> versioning-09
>
> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 01:13:06PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > The only correct way to remove MUST/MUST NOT from the "YANG
> co
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 01:13:06PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> The only correct way to remove MUST/MUST NOT from the "YANG contract"
> is to introduce a new YANG language version (1.2), and make a new contract.
+1
> Ironically, the WG seems to understand the importance of proper management
>
odule versioning draft also updates that the change from current or
> deprecated to obsolete is NBC. Going “obsolete” is an impact to a client.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:06 PM
> *To:
versioning draft also updates that the change from current or
deprecated to obsolete is NBC. Going “obsolete” is an impact to a client.
Jason
From: netmod On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:06 PM
To: NetMod WG
Subject: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module
Hi,
Most of the document focuses on the administrative details that will
be required to update a YANG module. (Lots of them).
My concern is with YANG 1.1 Co-existence and deployment of this new RFC.
(Sec 3.1)
