On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:03:35PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > However, we could have said that a current node under a deprecated > node (etc) in the same module is an error, in order to force people > (through the useage of YANG validators) to detect and fix this. >
Is it an error or just something that deserves a warning and the author's attention? I am asking since we also have augmentations and if I mark a container as deprecated, this will not immediately cause an module augmenting the containter to get updated, hence I end up with definitions marked current in a deprecated container. And there are other situations where definitions may not be of the same status, i.e., a module (without import by revision) uses a type or grouping that in later revisions got marked deprecated. I think all of these status mismatches are things tools should warn about but I am not sure these are hard errors, in particular for 'deprecated'. Things may lead to stronger warnings for definitions marked 'obsolete'. /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
