On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen
> wrote:
>
> [Re: moving the definition of rc:yang-data to a new document]
>
> > >
> > > > We went through
Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
[Re: moving the definition of rc:yang-data to a new document]
> >
> > > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040.
> >
> > > There was no concern about this
Hi,
The use-cases for groupings/uses and augment are not identical.
Alternative NMDA Approach:
I don't see a big difference between defining YANG for an artifact vs.
defining some YANG for a special-purpose datastore.
There is nothing about the YANG data that is different.
There are only
>> Gotcha. What do other people think, would a "uses-yang-data"
>> statement be generally more useful?
>
> But does this mean we also do uses-yang-container, uses-yang-list,
> uses-yang-xyz to other definitions as well? I do not think this is
> desirable and why would yang-data be any
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:21:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> The grouping approach only works for 'B' if the definition of 'A'
> had the foresight to define a grouping 'B' could use, but 'C' could
> be out of luck.
This is generally true. YANG kind of require to design something for
reuse
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > I am not sure any new construct is needed at all.
>
> > The current definition covers it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive
> nor conducive to downstream
> I am not sure any new construct is needed at all.
> The current definition covers it.
Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive nor
conducive to downstream extensions…
> We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040.
> There was no concern about
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> I'd like to start a discussion about adopting this draft...or something
> like it (see below).
>
> The primary driver for wanting to expedite this draft is that it is being
> discussed as a required aspect of a chartered
I'd like to start a discussion about adopting this draft...or something like it
(see below).
The primary driver for wanting to expedite this draft is that it is being
discussed as a required aspect of a chartered NETCONF WG effort to define a new
encoding for YANG's 'notification' statement.