Phil Shafer <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: > >Phil Shafer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Martin Bjorklund writes: > >> >> What are your thoughts on this? Surely, an augment should not have to > >> >> contain if-feature statements of all parents of the augmented node. > >> > > >> >The spec says: > >> > > >> > When a server implements a module containing an "augment" statement, > >> > that implies that the server's implementation of the augmented module > >> > contains the additional nodes. > >> > > >> >Compare with a simple augment of a node w/o an if-feature. In this > >> >case, if the server implements the augmenting module, it MUST also > >> >implement the augmented module. > >> > >> It implements the module, but it doesn't implement the nodes > >> since it doesn't express the feature. IMHO this is a tool > >> bug and/or an errata,since otherwise one has to carry features > >> forward, repeating the if-feature using the original modules > >> prefix:feature-name on every augment of feature-based nodes. > > > >Well, I agree that it would have been better to state that if a server > >doesn't implement the augment target, then it doesn't implement the > >augment either. But the text is pretty clear; this is not how it > >works. This is not appropriate to "fix" in an errata. > > I'm missing the part of the text that's clear. The above quoted > section certainly doesn't say this. That text is saying "if you > implement a module that augments a set of nodes, then the server's > schema for that original set of nodes now includes the new set of > nodes". It's referring to schema nodes.
It explicitly says that server's *implementation* of the augmented module contains the additional nodes. If you don't advertise a certain module, I don't think you can claim that your implementation contains that module. And similarly, if you don't advertise a feature, I don't think you can claim that your implementation implements nodes that are conditional on that feature. > And if those schema nodes are conditional based on if-feature, then > those nodes are still in the schema, but are not supported by a > server unless the if-feature condition evaluates to true. > > I don't see a conflict, > it's just a case that we didn't think about > or write about. This I agree with. > It's a case that's not clearly handled in the spec, > for which reasonable implementations can disagree. That's a bug > in the spec and it that can be clarified via errata. > > Thanks, > Phil > /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
