> On 10 Mar 2016, at 10:18, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:44:04AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> this revision is based on the IETF LC. In particular, Robert Sparks >> suggested in his Gen-ART LC review to include an explanation as to why we >> chose a YANG extension rather than a built-in statement. I added a paragraph >> at the end of Introduction, please have a look, I hope it's a fair account >> that shouldn't cause any controversy. >> > > I think it is a feature to use extensions for new statements that do > not have to be in the core. Modularity is a good thing, the YANG > 1.1. specification is already 200 papges. When adding new statements, > we should rather ask the question 'can this not also be done using > extensions'?
I am not convinced about that. If we have a host of "standard" extensions (annotation, complex-type and co., mount-point, mount-module, you name them), every module author then may choose a subset of extensions for use in the module, and then the value of YANG as a standard data modelling language would be gone. This explains the glacial pace of development of schema languages - there is a good reason for it. The following facts also don't help: - there is no way for indicating which extensions are supported; - sec. 11 in 6020bis allows extensions to be added in a new revision of a module (it is not clear though whether this means definitions of extensions, uses of extensions, or both). Lada > > /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/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
