Juergen, see below.
On 2/4/2016 9:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > 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. 100% agree - at least in drafts. > Please define 'top-level module' any module that defines a top-level node, or if you prefer a module that defines nodes at the XPath root node. > so we can actually understand what we are talking about. If you don't like either formation, I suspect at this point you know what I mean, so please propose alternate language that works for you and I'll confirm that/if it works for me. Thanks, Lou > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
