On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:55:26AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >> Hi, >> >> RFC 6020, sec. 7.1.5 has this sentence: >> >> Multiple revisions of the same module MUST NOT be imported. >> >> I expect the new RFC will contain a complete explanation why >> this MUST NOT is wrong and needs to be changed. >> I would expect that multiple implementation examples of this >> approach can be cited, as proof that the new solution already works >> (before it is standardized). >> > > The attached yang module compiles using pyang 1.3 and if you replace > yang1:uuid with yang0:uuid, you get an error (as one would expect). >
A tool that parses the syntax is not really the same as a server implementation. I do not question the ability to distinguish 2 different strings as 2 different prefixes. > Depending on how your code is organized, the Y45-04 behaviour may fall > out naturally and it takes extra effort to implement the MUST quoted > above. It may be possible to find a second implementation that > actually does not implement this MUST. (Our libsmi code has a problem > with import-by-revision so it is not a candidate unless we implement > this.) > > The reason to change the MUST quoted above can certainly be explained. > So what is the explanation? Removing a MUST NOT (especially from a 1.1 maintenance release) is a big deal. I would expect it to be easy to demonstrate that the original MUST NOT is a bug. > /js > > PS: Yes, pyang is broken wrt. YANG 1.0 since it does not implement > the MUST quoted above. > Andy > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
