> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not > be NETCONF-specific. Why does YANG define extensions > to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text > about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC. >
This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod (first item in Open mike section). Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that are inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” sections. I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data tree properties. Separate documents would then define different encodings, and “profiles” for management protocols. It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though. Lada > > Andy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
