On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:14:42PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > We could define it using built-in statements, and bump YANG version number. I > don't get why this is worse that introducing "standard extensions", except at > Layer 8 (Political) - we can claim that YANG is stable even though it isn't. >
- Running a document of the size and complexity of the YANG specification through the IETF and publication process is expensive. - It is not clear at this point in time that YANG mounts are required to be supported everywhere. - It is up to this WG to keep YANG 1.1 stable. Claiming YANG isn't stable as a justification to make it not stable is a somewhat circular logic. I strongly believe that it is feature to work with extensions wherever possible. Gain experience with language extensions first and if they are widely deployed and used, consider to move them into the core at some point in time. I believe it is desirable to keep the complexity of the core YANG language somewhat under control. You likely won't agree with any of this and this is fine. But I also do not agree with your statement that working with extensions is just a layer 8 (political) issue. /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
