Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
I think it would. Such nodes would just be seen as config false nodes. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
