On 06/09/2017 14:53, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 01:32:19PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v St 06. 09. 2017 v 13:10 +0200:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:34:33AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
I would prefer if it status was inherited (as an errata to 6020, 7950).
Erratas are not a tool to change a specification. You have to write
and RFC that updates 6020 and 7950 in order to change what these RFCs
say. This requires full WG / IETF consensus since the change affects
implementations.
A current node with a deprecated ancestor doesn't make sense, so it
looks like an omission. IMO, a technical erratum is then
appropriate.
You can make status work recursively via an erratum. It clearly does
not work recursively in the YANG specifications.
And as explain before, given that we have augmentations, current
definitions below deprecated definitions cannot be avoided.
It seems like there are two different meanings (or interpretations) of
what the "status" of a node is:
The first is in the module definition, where the author of the YANG
model indicates whether they think the definition is still current or not.
The second is within a set of modules on a device, where the status of
the node depends both on the YANG "status" statement for the given node,
but also the actual status of the parent node.
Thanks,
Rob
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
