On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:06:41AM +0200, Jernej Tuljak wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder je 3.8.2015 ob 10:18 napisal: > >Any description statement in principle can do this. We trust that sane > >data model writers won't do bad things. And if they do, we hope that > >people will not implement and deploy bad things. > > Why not simply make this impossible by ensuring that description > statements cannot change what has already been agreed upon in RFC6020 > (aka YANG semantics)? I would have no problem with descriptions being > normative, if this would be the case.
You need to define way more clearly what 'YANG semantics' means. > >I continue to see extension statements as reusable and (in principle) > >machine readable fragments of description statements. From this > >perspective, it seems odd to make a difference between extensions and > >description statements. > > I still disagree that description statements should be more powerful > than any other YANG statement. What does 'powerful' mean? Time that someone writes concrete text so we can have a more constructive discussion. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
