Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) <jlind...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> I have taken a third pass at getting the extension of yang modules
>> done.
> Sorry for my slow response. I had a look at your latest version now,
> and I think it looks good from a general YANG pov.
so, this business of each module defining stuff, and then using it, rather
than augmenting an existing module is the right way/
>> This time, I am using RFC8791 (Structure), rather than YANG-DATA. I
>> do not use Augment (or structure-augment). Not sure how I would.
> Yes, if what you want is to describe protocol messages, sx:structure
> would be a good way to package this.
We are describing data at rest, not protocol messages.
>> This is not great, but better than before.
> What aspect of this solution do you consider less than optimal? That's
> not quite obvious to me.
Well, it's incompatible with what we did in RFC8366 / RFC8995.
So, we have to revise both, I think.
> If any of this causes problems with SID generation, I'm afraid that's
> not my territory. :-)
I'm not convinced that we have actually created any leaves, only definitions.
That is, it feels like the definitions are templates rather than definite.
>> The results are still at:
>>
>> https://github.com/mcr/yang-augment-test look at module-?3.yang and
>> practice3.sh.
> Thanks for putting this in concrete and easily accessible form, i.e. as
> compilable YANG modules on github.
Glad it helped, if I could have presented it better, let me know.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
