On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

I like Randy's text.  I don't really think any text is needed,
because the differences between "conformance to YANG"
and "conformance to a module written in YANG" are quite clear to me.
There is no way that all tools have to support some vendor extension
that is intended for 1 proprietary tool.



> /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
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to