> On 15 Aug 2015, at 01:32, heasley <h...@shrubbery.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 21:31, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> IMO this is issue is closed. >>>> I see no reason to re-open it. >>>> YANG does not allow augments to add mandatory nodes. >>> >>> I strongly disagree with this attitude, this is a normal IETF procedure. >>> Things can be changed even during WGLC. >>> >>> Virtual interims aren?t good for discussing non-trivial technical issues. >>> >>> >> I am not hearing any new arguments for changing this rule for augments. >> It's up to the co-chairs whether they want to re-open this issue. > > This might be ignorance of detail, but doesn't this approach essentially > force > vendors to publish [what i've been calling] enterprise yang models for models > that they might otherwise just augment to support proprietary features?
I think there are two aspects here. On the one hand, we probably don’t want vendors to augment a standard interface type with mandatory parameters because this breaks interoperability and creates a silo. On the other hand, vendors (or anybody) can create a new interface type (or derive its identity from a standard type), and then they should be able to use full power of YANG to specify schema constraints including mandatory parameters where necessary. Lada > > if so, what is the point of defining *any* models? > >> >> >>> Lada >>> >> >> >> Andy > > _______________________________________________ > 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
