On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 11:36 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:25:06AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > 
> > The primary use case is not "generic RPC messages", but standalone
> > instance documents, error-info structures, etc.
> > 
> > > This doesn't seem to be a fundamental change in YANG's scope, or
> > > architecture.
> 
> The proper solution for rpcs and actions is to define error
> information as part of the rpc/action. YANG 1.1 does not support
> this but this is where it should be fixed.
> 
> Standalone instance documents (not tied to datastores) may have their
> use cases as well but it feels odd to create support for standalone
> instance documents as extensions and then to create even more
> extensions to support augmentation of these instance documents and
> whoever knows what comes next. For short-term needs, there is
> yang-data defined in RFC 8040. The longer-term solution should IMHO be
> a proper part of YANG and not an extension.
> 
> And if the current short-term solution requires an additional
> container, then bam go for the additional container. If there is
> serious pressure to use yang-data, then the additional container
> should not stop people that need to use yang-data today.

I agree with all of the above.

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to