On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 04:36:01PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am not sure what this statement tells us re. the issue in this email > > > thread. > > > > It tells us that, in my view, the approach taken in this document is a > > bad idea. > > Do you mean that the WG shoud drop this document? And people that > need yang-data should continue to use the version in 8040? Or that > people that need yang-data do not have a valid use case and they > should do something else?
One option is that people use yang-data as defined in RFC 8040 until there is a version of YANG that has a proper and complete integrated solution. (If for example yang-data is used to declare error content for RPCs, then more extensions are needed or a proper integration into YANG. Is it really good to introduce augment-yang-data (instead of making augment work with say 'data' in YANG 1.2)? And then we do uses-yang-data etc. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
