> On 20 Aug 2015, at 16:47, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
This makes sense, the only problem is that the realm of YANG conformance is not precisely defined, and involves protocol considerations. For RELAX NG it is much easier because it is a schema language and nothing else, so schema annotations are deleted early in the validation procedure. Lada > > > > > 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 > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
