Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote:
> On 22.04.2024 19:29, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 0) Why is this document still kicking around the WG?
>> (Too bad it doesn't have the word "mud" in the filename.)
>>
>> 1) I find the title confusing.
>>
>> 2) I don't think that AUGMENT does what you want, because YANG is not
>> extensible in the way we are used to doing with IANA.
> Please say more as to why.
Augment builds a new information model with a new name.
(Augment is not the IANA Considerations you were looking for)
You want to update an existing one (RFC8520) to include this new grouping.
Here are some slides about the frustrations we had in ANIMA with
RFC8366(bis). This hit the peak confusion at 116:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-netmod-10-anima-yang-datasxstructure-rfc8366bis-discussion-00
the recordings for netmod are perhaps better than the one for ANIMA (same
slides)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
