On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > >..... > > However, clients MAY ignore any or all extensions appearing in > > modules advertised by the server. > > Hmm, I agree with Andy's idea that the definition of an extension > defines the conformance for the extension. > > I think this is an important distinction. RFC 6536 says this extension is mandatory for conformance to NACM. RFC 6020 says this extension is optional for conformance to YANG. > > > By the way, due to the adopted solution Y49-04, the second paragraph in > > sec. 6.3.1 should also be removed. > > I assume you mean the second paragraph of 6.3.1 in RFC 6020? That > paragraph is already removed in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-06. > > > /martin > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
