On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 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? > > > Not really. Pretending the extension is just another description-stmt does not really fix anything. A real YANG statement like config-stmt or a new statement called ephemeral-stmt can be modified with refine-stmt or deviate-stmt. This can never happen for an external statement. IMO ephemeral data support needs to be a real statement that can be used with refine-stmt and deviate-stmt. It is a real property of a data node. /martin > > > Andy > > > > > > 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
