Re: [netmod] [Anima] mcr's YANG question raised during the ANIMA WG session

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> I have taken a third pass at getting the extension of yang modules
    >> done.

    > Sorry for my slow response. I had a look at your latest version now,
    > and I think it looks good from a general YANG pov.

so, this business of each module defining stuff, and then using it, rather
than augmenting an existing module is the right way/

    >> This time, I am using RFC8791 (Structure), rather than YANG-DATA.  I
    >> do not use Augment (or structure-augment).  Not sure how I would.

    > Yes, if what you want is to describe protocol messages, sx:structure
    > would be a good way to package this.

We are describing data at rest, not protocol messages.

    >> This is not great, but better than before.

    > What aspect of this solution do you consider less than optimal? That's
    > not quite obvious to me.

Well, it's incompatible with what we did in RFC8366 / RFC8995.
So, we have to revise both, I think.

    > If any of this causes problems with SID generation, I'm afraid that's
    > not my territory. :-)

I'm not convinced that we have actually created any leaves, only definitions.
That is, it feels like the definitions are templates rather than definite.

    >> The results are still at:
    >>
    >> https://github.com/mcr/yang-augment-test look at module-?3.yang and
    >> practice3.sh.

    > Thanks for putting this in concrete and easily accessible form, i.e. as
    > compilable YANG modules on github.

Glad it helped, if I could have presented it better, let me know.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide