>> Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive nor >> conducive >> to downstream extensions… > > I agree with Martin that we do not need to replicate plain YANG in extensions. > We want to avoid new extensions, especially if a regular YANG statement with > work.
By "downstream extensions" I meant future yang-data definitions. Imagine we have yang-data 'A' and then, later, a yang-data 'B' that builds on 'A' and then, even later, a yang-data 'C' that builds on 'B'. The grouping approach only works for 'B' if the definition of 'A' had the foresight to define a grouping 'B' could use, but 'C' could be out of luck. > IMO it is not worth the trouble. Gotcha. What do other people think, would a "uses-yang-data" statement be generally more useful? K.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
