> On 24 Feb 2016, at 15:48, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Lada,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> In yesterday's meeting, Lou (I think?) mentioned a use case for mount
>>> that is not documented in draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model; the need
>>> for being able to specify modules to mount directly in the schema.
>>> Something like this:
>>>
>>> container root {
>>> ymnt:mount-point "lne" {
>>> ymnt:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> It is IMO impossible to use YANG extensions for similar purposes because it
>> fundamentally changes YANG semantics.
>
>
> Please say more. I don’t see the issue. Naturally there would need to be an
> RFC that defines the semantics of this YANG extension, what else would be
> missing?
Extensions are optional to implement and "MAY be ignored in its entirety" (sec.
6.3.1 in 6020bis). Otherwise, why have we bothered so much with backward
compatibility in YANG 1.1? Somebody might define, via an extension, a new list
with deep or optional keys, or a floating point data type or whatever. So in
the end everybody would have YANG exactly to his or her own liking but there
would be no standard at all.
Lada
>
> K.
>
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
