Hi, This thread is not surprising because the YANG conformance model is not that well defined.
As long as the protocols that access hierarchical YANG data require the parent to be implemented in order to access the child, it really doesn't matter how you want to spin the augment conformance. In YANG terms "implement the module" means "implement all base module constructs". The server can claim conformance to the module and also choose not to implement any of the YANG features. Anything with an if-feature is optional-to-implement. I don't see how the text you are debating changes that. Andy On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Phil Shafer <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Wilton writes: > >> But I don't think it can be done in an errata. > >Does this just leave the behaviour as undefined then? I.e. it is up to > >the implementation to decide whether they error the augmentation. > > Which is an unacceptable outcome. Errata are an acceptable > means of addressing this. We are not fixing a protocol design > error, but repairing a missing scenario. > > A savvy implementer of the specification can often, but not always, > figure out what was intended by the RFC as published, but technical > errors should be announced somehow. > > In this case, the spec says nothing about an odd but interesting > scenario. I don't think this requires a new version of the protocol, > just a clarification. > > Thanks, > Phil > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
