Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 29 Jul 2015, at 17:09, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> 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 am not sure how interesting this is, but yes, action could have been done as an extension statement. In fact, that's what we (and others) have been doing since 6020 was published. The difference here is that action has been around and used for several years, whereas we don't even have agreement that "config ephemeral" is the right solution to the problem. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
