> -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:23 PM > To: Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] update on "rdns" URN for enterprise YANG models > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:23:51PM +0000, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen wrote: > > I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some > > of the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite > > answer the questions. I'd like to point out that the request for > > "rdns" URN is not to prevent the use of URLs. The request for "rdns" > > URN is to allow an enterprise to easily create a URN namespace, if the > > enterprise happens to prefer to use URN as a YANG module namespace. I > > also think that the problems that arise when a YANG module uses a URN > > based on an enterprise's domain name are the same problems that arise > > when a YANG module uses a URL based on an enterprise's domain name. > > (Of course, this is not an excuse to fix the problems that should be > > fixed.) > > You write "happen to prefer to use URN" - why?
draft-chen-rdns-urn Section 4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-rdns-urn-06#section-4> discusses why an enterprise might prefer to use URN over URL. URL provides resource access mechanism, which might mislead a customer to request that the YANG module be accessible at a specific location. It's true that the device does not care that the YANG module is not at a particular URL, but I can still imagine getting a bug requesting that the YANG module be accessible at the URL. Thanks, Helen _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
