Thank you Eric and Juergen, this is really helpful, especially the diagram.
Is there an implementation distinction between alias-mount and peer-mount? I’m hoping that there is one solution for both. Is there a difference with edits? E.g., a remote data mount is read-only, whereas a local data mount is read-write? Kent On 3/16/16, 11:12 AM, "netmod on behalf of Eric Voit (evoit)" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ev...@cisco.com> wrote: >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder , March 16, 2016 7:23 AM >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:50AM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: >> > To help differentiate between concepts and drafts, below are strawman >> definitions for the various types of Mount which we have been discussing over >> the last year in Netmod. Thoughts/suggestions? >> > >> > YANG Mount >> > ---------------- >> > Definition: An abstracted term for a mechanism that a parent YANG model can >> use to link in YANG information defined or located elsewhere. >> > Purpose: Provides model flexibility by enabling the growth of YANG trees >> > via >> an explicit reference to other YANG information and structures. >> >> Trying to rewrite the definition to be more consistent with existing >> terminology: >> >> The abstract concept of incorporating a YANG-defined data tree (the >> mounted data tree) into a existing YANG-defined data tree (the >> parent data tree). >> >> Well, this is not really correct, perhaps we have to just say 'tree' >> instead of 'data tree' since a schema mount (as I understand it) seems to >> incorporate a schema tree into another schema tree while the other two >> mounts incorporate a data tree into a data tree. So perhaps the general >> definition is something like this: >> >> The abstract concept of incorporating a YANG-defined data tree or >> schema tree (the mounted data or schema tree) into a existing >> YANG-defined data tree or schema tree (the parent data tree). > >This works for me. > >> The schema mount then essentially removes data tree and the other two >> mounts remove the schema tree from this definition. >> >> Is your alias mount simply a special case of a peer mount where the peer is >> local? Or is there more to it? > >>From a syntax standpoint, peer mount is more general. But underneath, things >>get more complicated. > >For example, many of the initial concerns about peer mount were on the >implications of synchronizing objects across distributed systems. (I.e., >Eventual consistency is not appropriate when attempting to manage some type of >objects.) Alias mount shouldn't have this issue. > >Eric > >> In other words, would it be reasonable to think of the terms in this way: >> +-> schema (tree) mount >> | >> mount -> | +-> local data tree (alias) mount >> +-> data (tree) mount -> | >> +-> remote data tree (peer) mount > >The formatting came through mixed up, and I didn't want to make any >assumptions by doing my own reformatting. If the answer above doesn't >suffice, resend the example. > >Eric > >> /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/> > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >netmod@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
