Juergen, Agreed, given where you are in the process, the Yang1.1/action ship has sailed.
At this point, if the feedback is valid (consensus for which hasn't been shown), it only provides an Occam's Razor reminder for thinking about how to add future features. If the mount ship has not sailed, then mount might be one of those future features. Cheers, Stuart -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:08 AM To: STUART VENTERS Cc: [email protected]; Martin Bjorklund Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount / possible simplification Speaking with my WG chair hat on, I think it is a bit late to discuss the design of actions. The WG has been working on YANG 1.1 for almost two years and unless something is really broken in the specification I am not going to take the specification back from where it is now, namely the processing pipeline of the IESG. It is time to deliver and then use all the good stuff that is in YANG 1.1. /js On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 02:58:08PM +0000, STUART VENTERS wrote: > Interesting, this highlights a concern I have with Yang. > It's highlevel goals and progress are great, but at a detail level, > instead of using one general purpose language construct per feature, it > seems to be evolving to use many. > For a new language evolving in an old problem area, this doesn't seem right. > > RFC6020bis-11 section 7.15 gives some clue as to the reasoning behind this. > "The difference between an action and an rpc is that an action is tied > to a node in the datastore, whereas an rpc is not." > > To me, this feels like a protocol or implementation issue is causing an > unnecessary language addition. > > I wonder if an alternative strategy could be to say that you can use an rpc > in a node, but when you do the name of the rpc on the wire becomes some > combination of the node name and the rpc name? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:08 AM > To: t. petch > Cc: STUART VENTERS; [email protected]; Martin Bjorklund > Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount / > possible simplification > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:26:17PM +0000, t. petch wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 4:52 PM > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 04:25:37PM +0000, STUART VENTERS wrote: > > > > > > > > 2) Allow the 'rpc' and 'notification' nouns to be used in other > > places in the schema tree besides at the top module level. > > > > > > This is already part of YANG 1.1. > > > > Looking at rfc6020bis-11 s.14, I see 'notification-stmt' appearing > > in many places so indeed it is allowed in other places but only see > > 'rpc-stmt' appear in 'body-stmts' . Which, if I understand aright, > > means that 'rpc-stmt' can still only appear at the top level. > > > > Yep. But there is a new action-stmt and in section 1.1 it says: > > o Added a new statement "action" that is used to define operations > tied to data nodes. > > /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/> -- 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
