Another place in the draft that appears to be inconsistent with the
section 5.6.5 text below is in 7.1.5, last sentence of this paragraph:
When the optional "revision-date" substatement is present, any
typedef, grouping, extension, feature, and identity referenced by
definitions in the local module are taken from the specified revision
of the imported module. It is an error if the specified revision of
the imported module does not exist.*If no "revision-date" substatement is present, it is undefined from
which revision of the module they are taken.*
I think that section 5.6.5 does define which revision is used (as the
text below). I.e. it is the most recent revision out of all the module
revisions that are imported or implemented.
Rob
On 27/02/2017 11:15, Robert Wilton wrote:
in RFC 7950, The last paragraph, section 5.1.1 "Import and Include by
Revision" states:
"If a module is not imported with a specific revision, it is
undefined which revision is used."
But I was wondering if the above text is misleading, since section
5.6.5: "Implementing a Module" has the following two paragraphs:
If a server implements a module A that imports a module C without
specifying the revision date of module C and the server does not
implement C (e.g., if C only defines some typedefs), the server MUST
list module C in the "/modules-state/module" list from
"ietf-yang-library" [RFC7895 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895>], and it
MUST set the leaf
"conformance-type" to "import" for this module.
If a server lists a module C in the "/modules-state/module" list from
"ietf-yang-library" and there are other modules Ms listed that import
C without specifying the revision date of module C, the server MUST
use the definitions from the most recent revision of C listed for
modules Ms.
The reason for these rules is that clients need to be able to know
the specific data model structure and types of all leafs and
leaf-lists implemented in a server.
This seems to imply that import without specifying the revision would
mean that the latest revision listed in ietf-yang-library must be the
one that is imported. Is that correct, or am I misinterpreting the
text? Hence, should the last paragraph of section 5.1.1 be deleted?
Thanks,
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
