Subject: Re: [netmod] Status of draft-ietf-netmod-yang

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 07:23:55 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
>Sent: May 7, 2010 3:54 AM
>To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: NETMOD Working Group <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [netmod] Status of draft-ietf-netmod-yang
...
>Please note that with SMIv2 AGENT-CAPABILITIES, I can list all objects
>of a MIB module as "not-implemented". So if there is going to be abuse
>of such a mechanism, we should have meanwhile some experience with
>it. (Note that AGENT-CAPABILITIES were first introduced in 1993 if I
>recall correctly - thats 17 years ago.)
...

RFC 2580 says 
   Practical experience has demonstrated a need for concisely describing
   the capabilities of an agent with respect to one or more MIB modules.
   The AGENT-CAPABILITIES macro allows an agent implementor to describe
   the precise level of support which an agent claims in regards to a
   MIB group, and to bind that description to the value of an instance
   of sysORID [3].  In particular, some objects may have restricted or
   augmented syntax or access-levels.

The question of conformance is answered by looking at the
relevant MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement(s) and verifying
whether the implementation actually meets those requirements.
At most, AGENT-CAPABILITIES will tell you why the implementation
in question can't be legitimately claimed to conform.

I think the issue is making it clear whether (and how) an implementation
with deviations could still legitimately claim to *conformantly*
implement a particular model.

Randy