Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0

Hi Jan,

Thanks – we’ll look at trying to put everything into submodules in this case.

Regards,

William

From: Jan Lindblad [mailto:janl@tail-f.com]
Sent: 07 August 2017 14:28
To: Ivory, William <wi274w@intl.att.com>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0

The submodule concept in YANG 1.0 is, well, not very useful, and even less intuitive. That's why it saw major rework in YANG 1.1.

A YANG 1.0 submodule cannot reference the module that includes it, directly or indirectly. This is because in YANG 1.0 the symbols in other submodules of the same namespace are invisible to the submodule unless they are explicitly included. And parent modules can't be included by a submodule because that would lead to an inclusion loop. It is possible to reference (augment, etc) other sibling submodules, though. So if you split your modules cleverly, you might be able to resolve your referential constraints anyway.

If you really want to take the submodule path, I'd recommend moving to YANG 1.1. In the interest of preserving the hair tone of IT-architects.

/jan

We’re trying to solve a modularity problem with a YANG module by splitting it into submodules and augmenting the parent module from each submodule.  However, despite the wording below in YANG 1.0 section 7.15, we’ve found a couple of threads online with comments suggesting it’s only allowed in YANG 1.1?  Would appreciate clarification.

RFC 6020 section 7.15 suggests it is allowed:

‘
   The "augment" statement allows a module or submodule to add to the
   schema tree defined in an external module, or the current module and
   its submodules, and to add to the nodes from a grouping in a "uses"
   statement.
‘

Versus online comments here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15418.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_netmod_current_msg15418.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=FmJP9CH54z5mG3DFGBdc_9q1TLpYQ31-TQ-26_Qa9vw&m=YC4w6Zi9KhBp0MnnvA42_qdR2aM3uOFWpZYtgF122Ec&s=OxxQRDucETBaDPn4KGNWcLlu4e8AMSfuyJJjrklp3R0&e=>

‘> On 01 Mar 2016, at 10:38, Anton Tkáčik <anton.tkacik at pantheon.tech> wrote:

>

> Hi,

> Noticed other issue with example set,

> In https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/194<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_mbj4668_pyang_issues_194&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=FmJP9CH54z5mG3DFGBdc_9q1TLpYQ31-TQ-26_Qa9vw&m=YC4w6Zi9KhBp0MnnvA42_qdR2aM3uOFWpZYtgF122Ec&s=bkakKJEZzCBq3BkP5NzW-wDX6KOZHpOnT0u-ySg8rS0&e=> Lada stated that in YANG 1.0 submodule can not augment nodes

> defined in parent model.

>

> Is that correct that submodule can not augment definition defined in parent module?

This isn't possible in YANG 1.0 but will be possible in 1.1. However, in the present case the definition being augmented from the submodule is arguably in a different module.

Lada
‘

Thanks,

William

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=FmJP9CH54z5mG3DFGBdc_9q1TLpYQ31-TQ-26_Qa9vw&m=YC4w6Zi9KhBp0MnnvA42_qdR2aM3uOFWpZYtgF122Ec&s=x7sK1jWYtSsQJr8r6G7FjWR5gAoMtgv6zRwxT4bzMGQ&e=>