Hi, +1 to concerns about stability.
Andy On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:14:42PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > We could define it using built-in statements, and bump YANG version > number. I don't get why this is worse that introducing "standard > extensions", except at Layer 8 (Political) - we can claim that YANG is > stable even though it isn't. > > > > - Running a document of the size and complexity of the YANG > specification through the IETF and publication process is expensive. > > - It is not clear at this point in time that YANG mounts are required > to be supported everywhere. > > - It is up to this WG to keep YANG 1.1 stable. Claiming YANG isn't > stable as a justification to make it not stable is a somewhat > circular logic. > > I strongly believe that it is feature to work with extensions wherever > possible. Gain experience with language extensions first and if they > are widely deployed and used, consider to move them into the core at > some point in time. I believe it is desirable to keep the complexity > of the core YANG language somewhat under control. > > You likely won't agree with any of this and this is fine. But I also > do not agree with your statement that working with extensions is just > a layer 8 (political) issue. > > /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/> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
