> On 28 Jul 2015, at 11:42, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would like to open another issue for YANG 1.1, >>>> because I don't want to have 1.1 and then 1.2 right away. >>>> The NETMOD WG should evaluate the different ways to >>>> support ephemeral state, based on Jeff's draft. > > [...] > >> The problem with using YANG extensions for important protocol features >> is that the YANG spec says these statements MAY be completely skipped >> by a tool implementation. This is not acceptable for ephemeral state >> (or operational state either). > > I don't agree that this is a problem. If i2rs defines an extension, > then i2rs implementations will have to support that extension. This > is the whole idea behind extensions - we should not have to revise > YANG everytime we need a new statement. >
Yes, it could work in this case as long as modules containing this extension are never advertised to regular NETCONF/RESTCONF clients. Lada > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
