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