On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:14:43AM -0700, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Minor issues: > > Sometimes, when a draft updates an existing RFC, people ask whether > implementations not implementing the draft are still compliant with the updated > RFC. Based on discussions, the consensus seems to be that existing > implementations are still compliant, and if one wants to mandate the new > features a bis is needed. I would just like to confirm whether that applies > also to this draft. If so, perhaps a note indicating that would be useful, in > order to avoid discussions in future? An existing NETCONF server not implementing NMDA is still compliant to the RFC 6241. However, a NETCONF server implementing NMDA (RFC 8342) has to implement this update to RFC 6241. Do you want to have this stated more explicitly? (We will have the same for RESTCONF and the NMDA update of RESTCONF.) > Related to that, it would also be good to have an interoperability > statement, saying that implementations that implement the draft will > still work with implementations that do not. This primarily concerns clients: They need to be able to fallback to using <edit-config> instead of <edit-data> and <get> instead of <get-data> if they communicate with a non NMDA NETCONF server. I am not sure whether this is a "SHOULD be able to fallback" or a "MUST be able to fallback". /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
