On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:02:26AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > If more granular mounts are needed, then we should IMHO _not_ bundle > > this with the notion of YANG submodules. Perhaps you meant submodules > > in a more generic way, but then perhaps: > > > > s/of submodules/of parts of modules/ > yes.
OK - so I will read submodules as 'parts of modules'. > > Reading the other text again, I am not sure what is meant by the > > phrase "incorporation of the data model defined by one top-level > > module". What exactly is a 'top-level module' (and does it matter, > interfaces. An example does not define the term. Please define 'top-level module' so we can actually understand what we are talking about. > > why > > can I not mount a non-top-level module)? > Good question. This should be added to 5, i.e., a good capability, but > not used by our draft. I can't tell until I am told what a 'top-level module' is and what a 'non-top-level module' is. > > And does 'incorporation of > > the data model' imply 'incorporation of the complete data model'? > to me these two are the same, so yes -- unless you are implying > something I'm missing ;-) I am trying to understand and I am trying to avoid discussions where people talk past each other because of different interpretations of the words they use. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
