On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> > to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some
> > definition of beauty).
>
> This would be pretty complicated. Suppose I define my own beautiful
> structure like this:
>
> container my-interfaces {
> x:mount-point "if" {
> x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> }
> }
> container my-routing {
> x:mount-point "rtr" {
> x:mount-module "ietf-routing";
> }
> }
>
> Note that with the mount-point defined in my draft, each mount-point
> becomes itw own "jailed" or "chrooted" tree. So references cannot
> cross mount points.
Could be the same here.
> In this case, we have references between ietf-routing and
> ietf-interfaces. How would they work?
How do they work in your solution? If interfaces is jailed and routing
is jailed, how does routing refer to the interfaces?
> What happens with the references if I do:
>
> container my-interfaces1 {
> x:mount-point "if1" {
> x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> }
> }
> container my-interfaces2 {
> x:mount-point "if2" {
> x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> }
> }
> container my-routing {
> x:mount-point "rtr" {
> x:mount-module "ietf-routing";
> }
> }
Why is this any different in yours or Lada's solution? The question
what is accessible to whom is I think independent from the question
whether the schema mounted at a mount point is fixed in a schema or
described at runtime only, no?
/js
PS: I am asking these maybe stupid questions just in an attempt to
understand the designs on the table. I have no opinion about what
the 'right' solution is yet.
--
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
