Thank you very much for the review. Martin Björklund via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > From a YANG perspective, this module is quite simple and looks good. The only > thing you should change is to use sx:structure (from RFC 8791) instead of > rc:yang-data.
yes, but we need to do this across the entire set of documents.
We have an RFC8366bis in progress anyway, so the timing is right.
> However, you wrote in the request for the review "we would want to use
this
> document as the spearhead for resolving our issue of augmenting rfc8366
YANG".
> I have read the thread on the netmod mailing list, but I am not sure I
> understand the problem correctly. In the ML thread, there was the
example of
> two independent modules that augmented RFC8366:
> module B adds some leafs to RFC8366
> module C adds some leafs to RFC8366
And then Module D wishes to inherit from B and C :-)
In practical terms, this would be a constrained version of PRM.
(combining draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher + draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm)
> But if the intention is to add leafs to the *existing* structure defined
in RFC
> 8366 ("voucher-artifact"), then this approach doesn't work.
We do this today in RFC8995 with augment.
> If this is the
> intention, the base structure needs to be defined with sx:structure, and
B and
> C would have to use sx:augment-structure to add their leafs. This
approach
> would e.g. allow an implementation to instantiate a "voucher-artifact"
> structure with leaves from *both* B and C, even though they are
independent
> modules.
We want to go this way, but we want to be sure we are really doing it wrong.
Do you have an opinion about whether there is just a bug in pyang's SID.py?
Or is there something else missing in the YANG?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
