Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > Just because some people don't agree that the existing modules should be > moved doesn't mean the NETMOD WG wants every module to create its > own top-level node.
I agree, but I would go one step further and say that just b/c we don't think that /device is a good idea doesn't mean that the NETMOD WG wants every module to create its own top-level node. (The point being that I think /device is a bad idea even if we didn't have these 7 modules published) > Create some organization for the 194 new modules. > I completely agree with you that these modules should be written with > a coherent development plan in mind. +1 > Given that CLIs are being driven by YANG, I completely agree that > understanding of the command hierarchy is useful. I have no objections > to the creation of a hierarchy or "node placement plan" or whatever. > This is a non-issue. +1 (although I think it will be challenging... I wouldn't try to create one single node placement plan for *everything*; routers, app servers, set-top boxes, radio base stations, just to mention a few types of boxes that have YANG models today) /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
