On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:49:06PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > > From: Andy Bierman > > Sent: Oct 17, 2015 10:42 AM > ... > > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions > ... > > Andy Proposed: > > > 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. > > I'd suggest a slightly different wording: > > The processing of extensions depends on whether support for those > extensions is claimed for a given YANG parser or the tool set in > which it is embedded. An unsupported extension, appearing in a > YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 14) MAY be > ignored in its entirety. Any supported extension MUST be processed > in accordance with the specification governing that extension. >
I am not happy with either of these. It is important for me to state that the semantics associated with an extension statement apply, irrespective of the tool being used to implement a module. You can't simply ignore nacm:default-deny-write just because your tool skipped over this extension statement. So what about this: If a tool 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 tool. Irrespective of this, the semantics associated with an extension MUST be implemented whenever an extension statement appears in a YANG 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
