Juergen, On 2/4/2016 2:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:07:32PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> >> On 2/4/2016 12:02 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> Can I mount /top/second? >> yes. But in our use case, we wouldn't explicitly do a mount here. but we >> would allow a server may choose to support it. >> >>> Why would a solution be simpler if I make >>> this impossible? >> We're not suggest this. We're stating what we require, not what we >> preclude. So a solution that supports non-top-level is just fine too. >> > So is the outcome of this discussion that you wanted to express that > it is sufficient for your use case to be able to mount nodes located > directly below the root? In other words, you would mount /system out > of ietf-system but you would never consider to mount, say, /system/ntp > or /system/radius. never is a strong word. it's more accurate to say we don't currently need in draft-...
> If this is the outcome, then the text describing your use case > requirement probably can be improved (the distinction between > top-level module and non-top-level module is misleading since all you > require is mount of top-level nodes). The mail said it wasn't need by the document. Lou > /js > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
