On 2016-07-28 17:13, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 28/07/2016 15:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
One issue I see is that extensions are effectively required to be
optional, allowing tooling to ignore them if they wish. This seems to
hamper their usefulness in some scenarios.
BALAZS: Any better ideas? IMHO if you want to support yang-mount you
will support the needed extensions.
For the example given here, I feel that something stronger would be
useful, i.e. an extension that must be implemented by the tooling for
the particular YANG module to make sense.
Perhaps when a module includes an extension it could indicate whether
support for that extension is regarded as required for the module to
be useful, or conversely if the module is still sane even if support
for the extension isn't implemented.
BALAZS: Agree, in the RFC text or in the extension's description we
could indicate whether it is mandatory to support the extension in order
to support the module.
Or we could add a formal statement, but no updates to YANG, so add an
extension to indicate this, and we are back in to step one.
By the way we already have IETF-defined extensions in nacm. Is it
mandatory to support those? IMHO no.
Thanks,
Rob
--
Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Senior Specialist
Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
