Hi, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to open another issue for YANG 1.1, > > > because I don't want to have 1.1 and then 1.2 right away. > > > The NETMOD WG should evaluate the different ways to > > > support ephemeral state, based on Jeff's draft.
[...] > The problem with using YANG extensions for important protocol features > is that the YANG spec says these statements MAY be completely skipped > by a tool implementation. This is not acceptable for ephemeral state > (or operational state either). I don't agree that this is a problem. If i2rs defines an extension, then i2rs implementations will have to support that extension. This is the whole idea behind extensions - we should not have to revise YANG everytime we need a new statement. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
