Jan, I'm clearly not speaking for Mahesh here. > On Feb 11, 2022, at 9:08 AM, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) <jlindbla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OLD: > This revision is non-backwards-compatible with the previous revision. > > NEW: > This revision is non-backwards compatible with the > previous version of this model. > > This revision adds an 'if-feature' statement called > 'client-base-cfg-parms' for client configuration parameters. > Clients expecting to use those parameters now need to > declare the feature to include them. > > The change was introduced for clients that do not need > them, and have to deviate to prevent them from being > included. > > Imo, this is a reasonable level of verbosity. This seems reasonable to me. > > Since it is servers (not clients) that declare support for features, I guess the > sentence should be something like this: > > Clients expecting to use those parameters now need to > verify that the server declares support for the feature > before depending on their presence. My general advice as a RFC author and a working group chair is to try to avoid restating things that summarize to "it's in the RFC". Implementations of yang modules are expected to handle capabilities. -- Jeff -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
