Hi - >From: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> >Sent: Aug 19, 2015 10:49 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [netmod] extensions and conformance ... >> > Juergen suggested this replacement text, which I support. Maybe it >> > can be improved even more. >> > >> > If a YANG parser does not support a particular extension, which >> > appears in a YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 13), >> > the entire unknown-statement MAY be ignored by the parser. Note >> > that even in this case the semantics associated with the extension >> > still apply (as if they were part of a description statement). ... >No. It means that if a server advertises module that uses some >extension to define some behaviour, the server supports that >behavior. Just as we expect a server to support the text in >description statements.
Sorry, but that interpretation is not supported by the 2119 definition of MAY. >For example, the nacm: extensions do not apply unless ietf-netconf-acm >is advertised (and nacm is enabled). I expect most extensions to work >this way. Another example is if we actually defined i2rs:ephemeral; >this would have no effect unless the "i2rs" capability (whatever that >is) is also advertised. > >The text also means that it is perfectly ok for a client to ignore the >extension if it doesn't understand it. For example, if the client has >no idea what the ephemeral datastore it, it doesn't matter that a node >is marked with i2rs:ephemeral true. You are describing something stronger than a naked MAY. You're describing an "if x MUST y". If the conformance requirement is truly simply MAY, then support is OPTIONAL even if the system claims conformance. Randy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
