> On Aug 25, 2015:1:25 PM, at 1:25 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I like the idea of relocatable modules. It is almost to say everything
> defined by the IETF should be a grouping, allowing others to assemble the
> pieces as they see fit. I do not think it makes sense for IETF to define an
> uber structure, especially using a language mandating forever backwards
> compatibility…
I personally think this is an important point not just for a list of
the most recent incarnations of modules, but also as we (perhaps rapidly)
iterate and rev modules going forward. In particular, think about this within
the context of the RFC model and what that implies going forward for model
iteration. Assembling pieces, including different revisions of models, is
something we should think about.
—tom
>
> How to support logical/virtual systems is a bigger discussion. Certainly
> there is a huge data model overlap between the host system and the logical
> systems, but some data may only exist in the host system and some data may
> only exist in a logical system. Making things more interesting, some data in
> the host system (e.g., an interface) can be exported to a logical system as a
> read-only value. The way I solved this in another life was using
> conditional enablement [1] on a shared data model to indicate the
> applicability of nodes in a context.
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-conditional-enablement-00
>
> Kent, as a contributor
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
