Hi Michael, Thank you for the clarification. This means we don't have to change anything in either BRSKI-PRM and constraint voucher, resp. in the general approach we use the voucher.
Best regards Steffen > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2022 20:46 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] mcr's YANG question raised during the ANIMA WG > session > > > A---------> B > \ . > \ . > \ . > V V > C . . . . > D > > > I had lunch with Rob today and explained the situation. > There are two answers! > > If D is a new YANG module (/RFC) that wants to > augment B > and augment C > > then it just works, and it's okay to say: > augment "B" {} > augment "C" {} > > I was worried that this would *not* allowed. > > i.e. D might not even add anything, although maybe it refines existing > things. > > There is, however, another way to build a "D" that does not add anything, > which is using > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatat > racker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-netmod-yang- > packages%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csteffen.fries%40siemens.com%7C2f6 > a2caab69a45c5813308da70c97c84%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a% > 7C1%7C0%7C637946307930928893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi > MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C300 > 0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WIU6YlA2s%2BXi9%2FBOH3qvTq7R4f2JYAdXh8p5 > P%2BKXDVQ%3D&reserved=0 > > In the context of ANIMA, A=>rfc8366, B=>brski-prm, C=>constrained- > voucher. > D=>a mythical constrianed-brski-prm. Whether or not D needs an RFC > because it creates new semantics is a different question. {It might need an > RFC for trade agreement reasons though} > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
