On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:55:03PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 29 Jul 2015, at 16:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:38:41PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> The first part about parser behaviour still doesn’t make much sense to me > >> and may be misinterpreted. I think that even a parser that does understand > >> an extension may ignore it. It all depends on what the parser output is > >> used for. > >> > > > > Oh boy - very high level of nitpicking. > > > >> I would just say (somewhere) that descriptions and extensions are integral > >> and binding parts of the data model. Unless I missed something, it is not > >> clearly stated for descriptions either. > > > > I tried to say so. Looking forward to your improved proposal. > > > > OK, here it is: > > Sec. 7.21.3 > ----------- > > Add this paragraph at the end: > > Constraints and rules stated in the text of a “description” statement are an > integral and binding part of the data model. > > Sec. 6.3.1 > ---------- > > OLD > > If a YANG compiler does not support a particular extension, which appears in > a YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 13), the entire > unknown-statement MAY be ignored by the compiler. > > NEW > > Extensions and their semantics as defined by the corresponding “extension” > statement are an integral and binding part of the data model. >
Well, this leaves it open whether a tool can skip over extension statements. I liked to have the difference explained... /js -- 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
