On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 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. > > Agreed. The description-stmt is normative. It defines implementation requirements for a data node. It is not used to override other YANG statements. However, if the description says "child foo must be greater than the value of bar" that is just as normative as a must-stmt that says the same thing. > >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. > A YANG description-stmt cannot override the syntax and semantics of other YANG statements. But is is mandatory and it is normative. > /js > Andy > > -- > 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
