Hi Lada,
ay
-
The set of annotations must be extensible in a distributed manner
so as to allow for defining new annotations without running into
the risk of collisions with annotations defined and used by
others.
What does "in a distributed manner" mean?
It means that different parties needn't coordinate the names and use of
annotations, as long as they don't choose conflicting YANG module names
or namespace URIs.
Ok, it was not too clear (to me) from the text.
- In the introduction, you mention:
Typical use cases are:
o Deactivating a subtree in a configuration datastore while keeping
the data in place.
o Complementing data model information with instance-specific data.
o RPC operations may use metadata annotations for various purposes
in both requests and responses. For example, the <edit-config>
operation in the NETCONF protocol (seesection 7.2 of [RFC6241]
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#section-7.2>)
uses annotations in the form of XML attributes for identifying the
point in the configuration and type of the operation.
Don't you have any other examples than those 3?
What about showing these examples with the spec. in this document?
Note: I see that the first one is documented with module
example-inactive
Well, the backlash I received with
draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-annotations-00 (expired) show that whilst there
is consensus about general utility of annotations, practical definitions
may be controversial.
Even as example?
I could add the annotations from the above draft
as examples here but I fear they could still make for unnecessary
discussions.
Martin already pointed out in his review that it may be wiser to replace
the "inactive" annotation with something less controversial.
ok.
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
