> I am not sure any new construct is needed at all. > The current definition covers it. <snip/>
Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive nor conducive to downstream extensions… > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040. > There was no concern about this extension being in the RESTCONF spec. I don't think people understood what was at stake at the time - yang-data has since taken on more prominence. You write "no concern", but I think it was more like "no response", and the solution just rolled on. > We really have to try to keep the documents stable, and not republish an RFC > just to move definitions around. We are talking about a new RFC (this draft). I don't care if 8040 ever uses the new yang-data statement, it can forever have its own private definition. I do care that we introduce a long-term solution (again, augment alone seems limited) and would like to make an incremental improvement for normative references. K. // contributor
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
