Juergen,
How do you feel about the proposed modification on the table? (Leaving the
model defined config leaves untouched and adding a -CFG or -metadata
sibling node which would contain the additional automatically generated
leaves.)
Lou
On February 5, 2016 7:24:29 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:09:37AM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I don't really follow your point.
The solution is fully backward compatible - in that only clients that
make use of the protocol extension would see the new encoding. Existing
clients would continue to see the encoding as directly defined in the
YANG schema, and a server would be able to support old and new clients
concurrently.
The YANG RFC details how data is encoded in XML. People have written
and deployed code against based on this RFC. I do not accept an
approach where an RPC option can simply request that the encoding
defined in the YANG RFC is ignored and replaced with a very different
encoding.
/js (stating a clear opinion as a technical contributor)
--
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
