Hi Michael, > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2022 16:50 > To: Fries, Steffen (T CST) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] mcr's YANG question raised during the ANIMA WG > session > > > Fries, Steffen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've got a question to the YANG question you raised in the ANIMA WG > > meeting yesterday. You said you would like to have some expert review > > on the usage of YANG in the BRSKI related documents regarding data at > > rest. Are you targeting the usage of YANG modules in BRSKI in general > > I'm asking a high-level question about how we are augmenting things. > I will prepare a better email for Benoit and/or Rob and netmod... but the > short of it: > > We have created RFC8366 yang voucher > We have then derived RFC8995 voucher request. > We then have derived brski-prm voucher. > > At the same time, we have constrained-voucher voucher derived from > RFC8366. > > If we want to have a brski-prm+constrained-voucher, are we doing that the > right way? > > Here is a diagram: > > A--------->B > \ . > \ . > \ . > V V > C . . . . > D > > If we want D to augment from two origins (B and C), does that even work? > Or does D have to augment A again, repeating the additions that B and C did? Okay, understood. Valid question. With addressing the comment from Esko we were getting rid of the redo from RFC 8995, but that does not prevent others from doing it. So yes, important point.
> I will see if I can have this conversation in person using the technology of > back-of-napkins. Looking forward Best regards Steffen > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
