On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:54:59PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Sure. The use case is for example servers that implement ietf-ip > (which imports ietf-interfaces), and ietf-interfaces. Suppose we > update ietf-interfaces to 1.1. It should still be ok for a server to > implement ietf-ip with the new ietf-interfaces. >
Is the confusion is between implements and imports here? The module ietf-ip will _import_ an older version 1 ietf-interfaces while the server _implements_ a newer version 1.1 ietf-interfaces module. Is this not going to work? > > Would it not work if an import of ietf-interfaces from a > > version 1 module simply resolves to the latest ietf-interfaces > > revision that is still version 1? > > But that would mean either that a server is stuck implementing version > 1 modules, or that the server must implement both the version 1 and > version 1.1 module - and we have already said that this isn't > possible. But this seems only true if import === implemented. > A set of simpler rules would be: > > A YANG version 1.1 module MUST NOT include a version 1 module. > A YANG version 1 module MUST NOT include a version 1.1 module. > > A YANG version 1.1 (sub)module MAY import a version 1 module. > A YANG version 1 (sub)module MAY import a version 1.1 module. It is the last one we are discussing, no? I am trying again: Why is the MAY needed? Why is it not sufficient for a version 1 module to work with an import for (the latest) version 1 module? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
