Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
Thanks Andy! This is a nice summary. > This makes sense, the only problem is that the realm of YANG > conformance is not precisely defined, and involves protocol > considerations. Agreed. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
