Hi Jan,

See inline

> On Mar 4, 2024, at 11:26 AM, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Reshad,
> 
>> Does the same question arise with augments?
> 
> No, I don't think so. Augments cannot modify existing namespaces, only add 
> content in their own namespace, then graft that namespace onto some existing 
> module. If that existing module imports the augmenting module, I would 
> imagine all YANG compilers would catch the attempt to create an import loop.
> 
>> Inline.
> ...
>> Is the construct in module d legal? RFC 7950 is not very clear on the 
>> subject, but it does say:
>> 
>>    After applying all deviations announced by a server, in any order,
>>    the resulting data model MUST still be valid.
>> 
>> If "applying" means actually replacing the original module text with the 
>> deviated text, then I'm fairly sure module d would violate the rule against 
>> circular imports. If "applying" is something that happens on a more "global" 
>> or "logical" level, then maybe this should be allowed?
>> 
>> <RR> I don't know what was the intention of the 7950 authors and not even 
>> sure what would be the "right thing". My guess would be it's more in the 
>> "logical" level.
>> 
>> By allowing deviations of this kind, we might create a temptation for people 
>> to use deviations for their own modules in order to create YANG structures 
>> otherwise not possible. I find this problematic, since I don't like 
>> deviations much. On the other hand, allowing deviations of this kind 
>> increases the freedom of expression in the YANG world. I think many would 
>> regard a moratorium as another YANG CLR (crappy little rule).
>> 
>> If we were to decide that this sort of deviation is allowed, wouldn't a 
>> logical conclusion be that we should drop the circular imports rule? 
>> Compilers could very well track which modules have already been imported 
>> (like in python), and not go into unbounded spin just because there is a 
>> circular reference loop.
>> 
>> <RR> yang-next?
> 
> We could of course clarify this or change the rules in yang-next once we know 
> what we want (I'm split on this one), but I was interested in the opinion of 
> the list whether this is allowed today.
> 

Please continue to have the discussion here, but suggest you create a new issue 
here <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues>, so the issue can be 
tracked.

Cheers.


> Best Regards,
> /jan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]






_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to