Juergen Schoenwaelder je 3.8.2015 ob 11:25 napisal:
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.
In terminology used by you, when you were explaining your view of
descriptions and extensions:
All we do is agreeing on certain constructs to be generally useful and
so we can write shortcuts that have well defined meanings. This is why
we have a language and do not write everything in prose. It is more
compact and more efficit.
Those shortcuts.
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.
The power to change previously agreed upon meaning of a YANG language
construct. The power to turn an arbitrary leaf into a container by mere
mention of it in what is defined as a textual description for humans.
Jernej
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
