Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Adding Yang Doctors to the thread.
> >
> > —Tom
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 17, 2016:4:42 PM, at 4:42 PM, Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > neither RFC6020 nor RFC7950 seem to be explicit about this, so I thought
> > > I'd ask.
> > >
> > > Are recursive, directly or transitively, extensions valid yang?
> > >
> >
>
>
> Extensions are not recursive.
> Your syntax below is valid but not meaningful.
Here's a real (and meaningful) example of a "recursive" extension:
extension substatement {
argument name {
tailf:arg-type {
type string;
}
}
tailf:use-in "extension";
tailf:occurence "*";
tailf:substatement "tailf:occurence"; // <-- reference to self
description
"Specifies which statements can occur as substatement to the
given statement.";
}
This is not different from how the core YANG statements can be used;
e.g., you can use "container" within "container".
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
