Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:45:30AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > David Reid <r...@snmp.com> writes: > > > > > section 6.3.1 states: > > > > > > If a YANG compiler does not support a particular extension, which > > > appears in a YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 14), > > > the entire unknown-statement MAY be ignored by the compiler. > > > > > > If a YANG parser does not support a particular extension, which > > > appears in a YANG module as an unknown-statement (see Section 14), > > > the entire unknown-statement MAY be ignored by the parser. Note > > > > Implications of this statement are still not clear to me. Let's say some > > protocol introduces an extension that is critical for that > > protocol. Does the above sentence mean that an implementation of that > > protocol MAY ignore the extension if it happens to use a parser that > > doesn't support it? > > > > Lada > > > > > that even in this case the semantics associated with the extension > > > still apply (as if they were part of a description statement). > > > > > Did you read the following sentence: > > [...] Note that > even in this case the semantics associated with the extension still > apply (as if they were part of a description statement).
But also note that the semantics associated with the extension can define a protocol negotiation mechanism that triggers the protocol behavior only when both peers agree it should be triggered. /martin > I think it answers your question with a 'no'. > > /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 > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
