Hi - >From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> >Sent: Oct 18, 2015 5:52 AM >To: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >Subject: Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions ... >I could copy the text of the nacm:default-deny-write description >verbatim into the description of every object marked with >nacm:default-deny-write. Using an extension is just a shorthand for >this (with the added bonus that it is machine readable for tools). I >do not think such an extension can be arbitrarily ignored just because >a certain tool skipped over it.
I think there is a slight flaw in this line of reasoning. For a *parser* to ignore an extension it does not claim to support is really no different from that tool skipping over description text specifying equivalent semantics. If a tool supported NACM, I doubt that there'd be any realistic expectation that it would be able to reach into description text to determine whether the natural-language specification said anything NACM-relevant, even though of course we'd expect a model implementation to abide by whatever constraints were thereby introduced. *Parser* conformance and *model* implementation conformance are distinct things, and we should not confuse them. Randy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
