> On 30 Jul 2015, at 01:12, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
In fact, generic tools like pyang ignore what’s written in descriptions. Lada > > 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 > > > > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
