On 8/31/2015 11:04 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> writes: >> ... >> Life is such that once a resource has been modeled, it will be >> used/re-used/embedded in systems in ways in which its designers >> couldn't be expected to imagine. A consequence of this is that >> if instance naming is completely locked down when the management >> interface for a resource is first defined (as it is in SNMP) then >> all sorts of peculiar hacks will be needed to deal with, for example, >> virtual routers. Unfortunately, an SNMP/SMI-like mindset is so >> pervasive that folks seem to overlook that there are other ways >> to deal with this situation. >> >> What GDMO did was to use a separate "NAME BINDING" construct to >> specify contexts in which instances might show up, allowing >> instances to be put in places that weren't even imagined when >> the original class definition was written. Name bindings could >> be standardized, or be vendor or even product-specific, allowing >> the simplicity or complexity of a given system's instance tree >> to reflect the actual simplicity or complexity of that system, >> rather than requiring all systems to be structured for the >> worst case. > > How could this be expressed in YANG terms? (I tried to figure it out > myself but I unfortunately couldn't make any sense of sec. 8.6 in CCITT > Recommendation X.722). >
This is exactly the (sub) model reuse issue I was getting at in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg13357.html I think this new capability (i.e., the ability to define complex, augmentable and reusable structures that are "included" when defining more complex models) would be a good new issue to track. Lou _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
