Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 10 Mar 2016, at 11:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:49:33AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >>> 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
Sure. The author will use the subset of core statement + extensions that is needed. If the module doesn't need meta-data, it won't be used regardless of if it's a core statement or an extension. > >> and then the value of YANG > >> as a standard data modelling language would be gone. > >> > > > > There will be a natural filter; things that are widely used will be > > widely supported, things that are not widely supported will not be > > widely used. We have the same with protocols and protocol extensions, > > Asymptotically, yes. But the modules developed in the meantime will be > a mess. I disagree. I agree w/ Juergen that defining extensions when it is possible is a feature. /martin > > some gain more traction than others. > > Protocols are very different because they usually have means for > signalling/negotiating extensions. A schema, ideally, is a static > specification against which instance documents can be validated. With > some YANG extensions that are looming around this may not be the case > anymore. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
