Re: [netmod] augment and if-feature

[Phil Shafer <[e-mail]>]

Martin Bjorklund writes:
>It explicitly says that server's *implementation* of the augmented
>module contains the additional nodes.
>
>If you don't advertise a certain module, I don't think you can claim
>that your implementation contains that module.

The issue is that the module is advertised/implemented/supported
but a feature of that module is not.  If an module is also
advertised/implemented/supported, is that module's author
forced to repeat the if-feature conditionals for the first
module?  I think this is a bad idea/design/precedent, and
makes life harder.

>And similarly, if you don't advertise a feature, I don't think you can
>claim that your implementation implements nodes that are conditional
>on that feature.

You certainly can.  Consider the "feature local-storage" from
the spec, where this feature indicates availability of local
storage.  The feature may be conditionally advertised, based
on the presence of an SD card.

But that's not even what the spec says.  It's more narrow:

>  When a server implements a module containing an "augment" statement,
>  that implies that the server's implementation of the augmented module
>  contains the additional nodes.

The "additional nodes" it's talking about are the _new_ nodes from
the augmentation, not the original modules nodes.

I think this is a case we did not consider previously and we should
find a suitable answer and document it as errata, rather than leave
it hanging in the breeze.

Thanks,
 Phil