Juergen, see below
On 2/4/2016 11:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > 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)? they are allowed/supported in the same way that they would be today, just with the modifications/rewrite of their base models. > > I fail to see why this distinction between top-level modules and > non-top-level modules is useful. I'm describing a single use case, which only requires top-level support, not all desirable capabilities or a solution. Lou > /js > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
