----- Original Message ----- From: "STUART VENTERS" <stuart.vent...@adtran.com> To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> Cc: <netmod@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:58 PM
> 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? Stuart Picking up on your earlier e-mail, I agree with your thoughts but accept Juergen's point that we should have got involved a year or two ago. What I think would be valuable now is more guidance on when to choose which option of the several available, like RFC6087 only more so. I think of this whenever I see a discussion on this list about e.g. identities, enumerations, derived types, ...references and such like. There are good reasons why one option is better than another but I struggle to understand them and rarely remember when I am looking at one of the dozens of YANG models that come out each month. Tom Petch > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:08 AM > To: t. petch > Cc: STUART VENTERS; netmod@ietf.org; 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" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> > > 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/> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
