Right, that would be “updating” it, and RESTCONF would need a similar thing. My point, and I think Tom’s too, is that it makes sense that the NETCONF (not NETMOD) WG do the protocol mapping work. Do you disagree?
K. From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 27, 2016 at 2:21 PM To: Kent Watsen <[email protected]> Cc: "t.petch" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Lou Berger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [netmod] Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WGinput On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > IMO YANG needs to be revised, not NETCONF. No, RFC6241 defines ietf-netconf.yang that hardcodes datastore names, so it needs to be updated or maybe even replaced. Hard-wired to allow augments from a different module: augment /nc:get-config/nc:input/nc:source/nc:config-choice { case operational { leaf operational { type empty; if-feature operational; } } } Kent Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
