Hi,
This errata is correct; the must expression in the errata reflects the
intention correctly.
But the question is if this can be fixed by an RFC errata...
/martin
RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7317,
> "A YANG Data Model for System
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7317,
"A YANG Data Model for System Management".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6245
--
Type: Technical
Reported by:
On 06/08/2020 00.43, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
A contrarian view:
I find the use of sub-modules helpful when I want to use separate
files to maintain part of the module that is logically separate, while
maintaining/restricting the use of them to a single namespace.
The fact that tools
Many thanks to all the responses so far; most helpful and much appreciated. As
a point of information, the I-D that triggered this, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model,
is out for, or about to be, YANG Doctor review so one of you can express a
more formal opinon thereon. (Perhaps it will be the YANG
I have to agree with the long list of "Costs" of submodules listed in this
thread, and can attest to the brevity of the "Benefits" side. The globally
accumulated amount of gray hairs produced by the YANG 1.0 submodule rules is
best measured in cubic meters.
The YANG 1.1 rules are much more in
