On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:53:11AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > 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.
Cool. So if I mount ietf-interfaces (a top-level module) into some other place, what happens to all the data models that augment ietf-interfaces with interface specific objects, like the ietf-ip module (a non-top-level module)? I fail to see why this distinction between top-level modules and non-top-level modules is useful. /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
