On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:49:33AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 10 Mar 2016, at 10:18, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:44:04AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> this revision is based on the IETF LC. In particular, Robert Sparks > >> suggested in his Gen-ART LC review to include an explanation as to why we > >> chose a YANG extension rather than a built-in statement. I added a > >> paragraph at the end of Introduction, please have a look, I hope it's a > >> fair account that shouldn't cause any controversy. > >> > > > > I think it is a feature to use extensions for new statements that do > > not have to be in the core. Modularity is a good thing, the YANG > > 1.1. specification is already 200 papges. When adding new statements, > > we should rather ask the question 'can this not also be done using > > extensions'? > > I am not convinced about that. If we have a host of "standard" extensions > (annotation, complex-type and co., mount-point, mount-module, you name them), > every module author then may choose a subset of extensions for use in the > module, and then the value of YANG as a standard data modelling language > would be gone. >
There will be a natural filter; things that are widely used will be widely supported, things that are not widely supported will not be widely used. We have the same with protocols and protocol extensions, some gain more traction than others. /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
