Robert Wilton <[email protected]> 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?
This is correct. > Hence, should the last paragraph of section 5.1.1 be deleted? No I don't think it should. From the perspective of a given module that imports another module w/o revision, it is undefined which revision is used - however in any given server the revision used is deterministic. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
