Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:31:27PM +0200, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > Hello Juergen, > > > > Sorry the wording was misleading. I want these capabilities both as state > > data AND as instance-data-files, because > > there is a need to know this information before you ever see the real > > network node. How about the following? > > > > "YANG servers SHOULD document server capabilities that are available via > > Netconf/Restconf (as YANG defined data) also using instance-data-files." > > > > I am against this. I think we should standardize the format and not > how the format is used. And it remains unclear why this would be a > SHOULD or how one implements this SHOULD and in which cases one can > ignore it. Again, I do not like to mix specification of mechanisms > with the specification of policies how mechanisms are to be used.
+1 This is what I tried to say as well in my comments on this document. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
