> On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls? > (The original and a synonym?) The whole point of > anydata is that it does not have XML cruft in it.
Yes, I understand this was your main priority. For implementors using off-the-shelf XML parsers and tools the XML cruft is not an issue at all. Anyway, I believe there are use cases for arbitrary XML/JSON/CBOR/… with no (YANG) schema available. My only complaint to “anyxml” has always been that it is a misnomer for encodings other than XML. > > I also don't get the value of a single top-level node called 'device' > that every YANG model on the planet is supposed to augment. > Can you explain why a protocol operation to retrieve the > document root (/) is not sufficient for the top-level node? I don’t intend to defend their model, the more serious problem IMO is that a model for a single device/function may be needed in another device that hosts many virtualised devices/functions of the former type. We don’t have a good solution for this rather typical situation. Lada > > Andy > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:45, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > after listening to the presentation of > > draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering > > whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful. > > > > The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but their tree in > > fact is > > > > +--rw device > > +--rw info > > | +--rw device-type? enumeration > > +--rw hardware > > +--rw interfaces > > | +--rw interface* [name] > > | ... > > +--rw qos > > > > So the "interfaces" container is no more a top-level node. There are > > three possible options: > > > > 1. Change the ietf-interfaces module. > > 2. Replicate its contents in another module. > > 3. Extend YANG so that a *specific* schema tree can be grafted at a > > given data node. > > > > IMO #1 & #2 are really bad. I thought Y34-04 was essentially #3 but it > > seems it is not so because it doesn't specify a concrete data model > > that's allowed at a given location. > > > > On the other hand, the only real contribution of "anydata" over "anyxml" > > is that is doesn't permit mixed content in XML, which is IMO not much. > > > > I know Y34 was already closed but I think it is more important to do > > things right before YANG 1.1 becomes an RFC. > > > > What I want to propose is this: > > > > - Rename "anydata" as a synonym to "anyxml", and deprecate "anyxml" (but > > keep it for backward compatibility). > > s/Rename/Introduce/ > > > > > - Introduce a new statement and data node type, e.g. "root", that will > > extend the schema tree starting from that data node with a precisely > > specified data model. The specification can be same or similar as > > in yang-library. > > > > I believe there are other use cases in the existing modules. For > > example, the ietf-routing module could simply define the data model for > > a single routing instance (i.e. without "routing-instance" list at the > > top), and it can be then used without changes on simple devices, and > > more complex router implementations can graft it as a subtree under > > "routing-instance", "networking-instance" or whatever. > > > > Lada > > > > -- > > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
