Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > I am not sure any new construct is needed at all.
>
> > The current definition covers it.
>
> <snip/>
>
>
>
> Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive
> nor conducive to downstream extensions…
>
>
>

I agree with Martin that we do not need to replicate plain YANG in
extensions.
We want to avoid new extensions, especially if a regular YANG statement
with work.



>
>
> > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040.
>
> > There was no concern about this extension being in the RESTCONF spec.
>
>
>
> I don't think people understood what was at stake at the time - yang-data
> has since taken on more prominence.    You write "no concern", but I think
> it was more like "no response", and the solution just rolled on.
>

I think I explained it well enough at the time.
There is a normative reference to RESTCONF to use yang-data.
This is just an RFC detail. In a server, the yang-library can indicate
that ietf-restconf is just imported (not implemented). It really does not
matter
that this extension is in ietf-restconf.yang.



>
>
>
>
> > We really have to try to keep the documents stable, and not republish an
> RFC
>
> > just to move definitions around.
>
>
>
> We are talking about a new RFC (this draft).  I don't care if 8040 ever
> uses the new yang-data statement, it can forever have its own private
> definition.  I do care that we introduce a long-term solution (again,
> augment alone seems limited) and would like to make an incremental
> improvement for normative references.
>
>
>

IMO it is not worth the trouble. There are NMDA drafts to work on instead.


>
>
> K.  // contributor
>
>
>
>
>

Andy