Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I understand the intent is that an implementation of NACM > has to understand these NACM extensions. I agree with Lada > that the YANG text about MAY ignore extensions casts doubt whether > this sort of NACM rule is enforceable or specified correctly.
So do you agree that it would be a good idea to clarify this according to Juergen's suggestion? /martin > > > Andy > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > The real difference is that extensions can be ignored by all > > > YANG tools and real statements cannot be ignored. > > > > Are you saying that a server that advertises both ietf-system and nacm > > is free to ignore the nacm statements in ietf-system, and for example > > by default provide read-access to > > /system/radius/server/udp/shared-secret? > > > > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
