On 6/26/2018 5:44 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:BALAZS: The current draft really says two things: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. /js
regards Balazs -- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. Senior Specialist Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected] |
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
