Hi -
On 10/19/2017 3:46 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Hi Randy,
Hi -
On 10/13/2017 11:55 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
...
Since RFC8049 is not implementable and therefore not implemented,
That's rather a leap of faith. The fact that spec is badly broken
and probably should not have been published in the first place isn't
of itself going to stop someone from using it as the basis for an
implementation of *something*.
Quoting Jan Lindblad, as YANG doctor:
"The 8049 YANG model had broken XPATH expressions, so a compliant
implementation was impossible."
The infeasibility of "compliant" implementation does not preclude
good-faith implementations of *something* using that module name.
We've seen that happen with other "broken" RFCs in the SNMP world, and
I see no reason why things will be any different in the YANG world.
If the WG is truly confident that no one had any intention of
implementing RFC 8049 (how else could it have been published without
the error being discovered?) and it has seen no uptake since
publication, then I agree it's a non-issue, though one might
wonder why the work was undertaken in the first place.
Randy