On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:19:00AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:19:14PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:19:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Conformance to YANG for the extension: NONE This includes syntax > and > > > > > > semantics. It makes no sense at all (Lada is right) to say the > > > > > > extension semantics apply. They only apply if the tool supports > the > > > > > > extension. Conformance to the extension is a different matter. > > > > > > > > > > I would hope that a server supporting NACM implements the > behaviour of > > > > > nacm:default-deny-write when nodes are tagged with this extension. > > > > > Sure, a YANG parser is allowed to skip over nacm:default-deny-write > > > > > but if nacm:default-deny-write is used for a certain node, I think > we > > > > > want the server to implement the semantics implied by > > > > > nacm:default-deny-write regardless which tool the developer used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree. > > > > The semantics for this YANG extension only apply to NACM. > > > > Of course an implementation of NACM cannot ignore this extension. > > > > > > > > The extensions says what to do in NACM if the tag is found. > > > > (As it should). It does not define any behavior outside of NACM. > > > > No other tool except a NETCONF server implementation > > > > of NACM has any conformance requirement to implement this extension. > > > > > > I am confused, perhaps we talk past each other. If a server implements > > > NACM and some data model X contains > > > > > > leaf foo { > > > type string; > > > nacm:default-deny-write; > > > } > > > > > > does this not mean that the nacm:default-deny-write semantics must be > > > implemented for the foo leaf regardless whether the developer's tool > > > is able to parse nacm:default-deny-write or skips over it? > > > > Sure. Andy wrote: > > > > Of course an implementation of NACM cannot ignore this extension. > > > > Good, so we actually agree. How do we get the wording to say what we > agree on? > Here is my attempt... OLD: If a YANG parser does not support a particular extension, which appears in a YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 14), 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). NEW: If a YANG parser does not support a particular extension, which appears in a YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 14), the entire unknown-statement MAY be ignored by the parser. Note that this only applies to a generic YANG parser. A tool which is required to implement the particular extension MUST NOT ignore such an unknown-statement. > > /js > > Andy > -- > 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
