Martin, On 9/2/2015 3:03 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > If it was done with > 'mount' instead of the proposed model in > draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00, it doesn't cost anything for > the 99% (more?) of all systems that do not have this kind of logical > systems, and data models would not have to augment the > /device/logical-network-elements/logical-network-element path.
This is a compelling point (at least to me). Of course there's lots of details to flush out to make this work, but seems like it's worth exploring this approach in more detail. The initial set of issues I see were in an earlier e-mail: On 9/1/2015 9:45 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > That said, there are some specifics that will need to be addressed to > use > this approach: e.g. to quote: > Mounted data is "read-only" data. > YANG-Mount does not extend towards RPCs that are defined as > part of YANG modules whose contents is being mounted. > YANG-Mount does not extend towards notifications. > Perhaps most of these limitations can be relaxed for local mounts. > > Also handling when a device/server doesn't support local mounts (or is > invalid) Lou _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
