Hi, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > YANG Doctors, > > > Does "foo" need to be "implemented", in order for its feature to be > define? > > module foo { > yang-version 1.1; > namespace "https://example.net/foo";; > prefix "f"; > > feature foo-feature; > > ... > } > > > Specifically, using the previous YANG Library (RFC 7895), would this > be possible: > > { > "name": "foo", > "feature": [ > "foo-feature" > ], > "namespace": "https://example.net/foo";, > "conformance-type": "import" > }, > > > Or does "foo" also need to be "implemented", in order for its feature > to be defined? > > > PS: the answer to this impacts the "crypto-types and friends" drafts > in the NETCONF WG, where it is assumed (and various tools agreed, sans > a recent change in `yanglint`) that the implementation-status of a > module is orthogonal to what features supported.
Can you show a specific example where this is a problem? /martin > > Thanks, > Kent > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
