On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > On 28 Jul 2015, at 11:42, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, it could work in this case as long as modules containing this > extension are never advertised to regular NETCONF/RESTCONF clients. > > This restriction is unacceptable. It must be possible to put I2RS data in any YANG module. > Lada > Andy > > > > > > /martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
