[netmod] 答复: (no subject)

[Zhuzhiguo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,
Thank you for your reply.

If module-A and modul-B are 1.0 modules, are they should be presented in <hello>?


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2017年11月7日 20:08
收件人: Zhuzhiguo <[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail]; Liquan (Liquan, NOS CSD) <[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [netmod] (no subject)

Zhuzhiguo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have one question about how to implement YANG module that import 
> other-module which is NOT be implemented?
> 
> For example, module-A import module-B, but any nodes that depend on B 
> are not-supported
> 
> Module A {
>    import module-B;
> }
> 
> There are two way to mark module-B is not really in use:
> 
> Option-1: refer conformance-type in RFC 7895 (ietf-yang-library), mark 
> module-A as "implement", module-B is "import"

This is correct.  But if A augments some node in B, you have to implement B as well.
-----////all these augments are deviated

> This way seems work, but some teammates think it may not comply with 
> RFC.

Why wouldn't it?
------////client can get module-B, but can't do any operation on module-B

> And we also argue about what module-B should be presented in <hello>
> 
> <capabilities>
>    <capability>module-A</capability>
>    <capability>module-B</capability> ===>should any "import" module MUST
>    be sent by server to client also?
> <capabilities>

Assuming A and B are YANG 1.1 modules, they should NOT be listed in <hello> - yang-library is used instead.
> Option-2: mark module-B as "implement" also, but mark all-nodes as 
> deviated This way seems work also, but it will cause NETCONF-client 
> and NETCONF-server load module that have NO node that can be accessed

There's no reason to do this.



/martin