> On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> If the "config" statement really carried some protocol-specific semantics >> that isn't meaningful for all potential uses of YANG, it would be better to >> remove it from core YANG and define it as an extension that would be >> mandatory for configuration protocols that need it. >> > > YANG exists because we wanted to describe and manage configurations. And
... and operations and notifications where config true/false is already meaningless. > some people still want to do this. I understand that you want to turn YANG > into a general purpose data modeling language. But I am not sure this is In reality, YANG has already been used as such quite a few times (not by me), mainly because it can define a schema of tree-like data in a representation-independent way, and there is no adequate substitute. Doing so in the current state of affairs means selectively ignoring some parts of RFC 7950, and creatively interpreting other parts. This is IMO not good. Lada > consensus. As of today, config true means what is defined in RFC 6020 > and RFC 7950. > > /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: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
