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.
>
> 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.
There are two separate issues here:
1) It seems we are in agreement that if a model uses an extension
statement, it is normative (like ietf-system's usage of nacm:*).
Should we somehow clarify this in 6020bis?
2) Extensions cannot be refined or deviated.
Actually, the *syntax* rules allows things like:
deviation /x:foo {
deviate replace {
i2rs:ephemeral true;
}
}
I agree that it not clear what this means, but we could also
clarify this in 6020bis.
> 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.
Note: it is still not clear that such a statement (base or extension)
is needed at all.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
