Lada, Yes sorry - I just saw that thread after I submitted mine.
BR, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 10:25 AM To: Carey, Timothy (Timothy) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] Constraint on mandatory on nodes as part of augmentation in RFC6020bis > On 15 Aug 2015, at 16:50, Carey, Timothy (Timothy) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Team, > > > Section 7.17 The augment statement has verbiage If the target node is > in another module, then nodes added by the augmentation MUST NOT be > mandatory nodes (see Section 3.1). > > > We are seeing situations where this constraint is invalid – Situations where > a standard builds on another standard and makes parts of the new standard > mandatory. > > It seems this was an issue in the past where the decision was to get around > this statement with a presence container. > > Since 6020bis is in progress – would it be possible to simply remove this > phrase and allow mandatory nodes as part of the augmentation so we don’t have > to have this artificial workaround? This is exactly what’s currently being discussed in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=netmod&gbt=1&index=ES2ogm1wabzZVIIBlrRor0fn3rk Lada > > Thanks, > Tim > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
