> On 29 Jul 2015, at 17:09, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:00:20AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >> Hi, >> >> So why don't we make all the new YANG 1.1 statements like "action" >> into extensions? This is just as good, right? It seems like real keywords >> are for feature you like, and extensions are for features you don't like. > > I guess we leave constructive communication here.
Actually, Andy has a point. We could have saved a massive amount of time by leaving action as an extension. Balazs could have already written a draft about it, and it could be used with YANG 1.0, too. I really thought this wasn’t possible because of the non-binding character of extensions. Lada > >> IMO ephemeral state is much more fundamental than the action-stmt. >> Every YANG tool MUST understand any statements added for this purpose. > > Again, it remains unclear to me whether any changes to YANG are needed > to support ephemeral state and as long as this is case (there is no > agreement on the solution for ephemeral state) I am not that much > interested to further delay YANG 1.1. There was agreement when we > started work on YANG 1.1 that we want to finish this in a reasonable > amount of time (~ 1 year) and I hope this agreement still holds true > since this is what I am trying to achieve. > > /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/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
