> From: Kent Watsen, February 23, 2016 7:19 PM > > Hi Eric, > > If you have a proposal, please send. A draft seems overkill to me, but maybe > you > have something in mind?
I have only the beginnings of a division of terminology and function in mind. I would put time into this should people care. More below. > I’m personally okay to name the schema-mount thing to something that doesn’t > use the word “mount”, so long as it’s still easy to understand. Worst case we > could all switch to using long form (e.g., schema-mount-point, instance-mount- > point), what do you think? At IETF 94, there was a proposal for something called Alias Mount. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-netmod-19.pdf (see slide 6) Alias mount didn't add a reference to an external box (like peer mount). It included just the subset of configuration needed to reference a locally targeted subtree. There were not provisions to augment the schema with additional info. I can see a reason for schema mount, alias mount, and peer mount. So without thinking too deeply, I believe it should be possible to have the needed parameters for WG selected mount variations which could be placed under the generalized mount keyword. This would seem to be an approach which is extensible, and which allows the technology solutions/requirements to be driven in parallel. Eric > Kent > > > > On 2/23/16, 6:21 PM, "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Kent, > > > >Thanks for running the interim, I agree it was quite useful. > > > >One thing I wanted to pull out from the minutes was the overall definition of > "Mount". Right now there are 830 web pages on the OpenDaylight site which > refer to "Mount" in terms of Peer Mount (i.e., something much like > draft-clemm- > netmod-mount). > > > >That does not mean that the IETF need define "Mount" the same way as an > Open Source project. But it is possible at this stage to create both > terminology > and requirements which breaks down the overall problem space. In other > words there is nothing stopping us from defining a set of terms and technology > solutions which fit together in a complimentary way. Nothing here need > conflict. > > > >If there is community interest, I would be willing to pull together a > >strawman > requirements/terminology draft describing the differences between mounting > schemas on a box, mounting a remote datastore. > > > >Any interest? > >Eric > > > >> From: netmod, February 22, 2016 3:51 PM > >> > >> > >> Thank you all who joined today’s virtual interim meeting. > >> > >> Other than my starting the recording late and rearranging the > >> presentation order, I thought that the meeting went really well in > >> that there seems to be a lot of support for trying to solve this > >> problem, and because we have a plan to try to move towards having a > >> WG document in the BA timeframe. The plan is for > >> draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount to be updated based on the > meeting and for it to be discussed on list as the basis for the WG effort on > the > topic. > >> > >> Attached are the very rough Ethernet minutes captured during the meeting. > >> Please review carefully. Corrections can be made on the etherpad here: > >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/netmod-interim-20160222 (so we > >> can track changes, the end of meeting snapshot is here: > >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/netmod-interim- > >> 20160222/timeslider#3933) > >> > >> To listen to the recording, please follow one of these two links: > >> > >> Streaming recording link: > >> > >> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=4dc88386f13a49fa8f2c934db953 > >> f4a2 > >> > >> Download recording link: > >> > >> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/lsr.php?RCID=1b6490fe5cc6fc95d4e3c9b913df > >> dc1f > >> > >> > >> Thanks again, > >> > >> Kent and Lou > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
