Michael, On 28.04.2024 23:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > consideration. Michael, I don't think it's necessary in this case to > update 8520 because we *are* indeed creating a new namespace. However, > this wasn't properly indicated in the draft.I don't have any idea how that would work. Can you give me an example JSON file along with some YANG that will validate it with yanglint?
Yep. See the latest draft.
The issue is that 8520 does not import (augment) from ol, so the new code is not there.
Right. That's why we have extensions in MUD.
If it *did* import from ol, then it would create a new namespace which wasn't 8520.
Precisely so.
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
