On 01/17/2017 01:29 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > For this reason, I propose that we go back to the previous model where > "mount-point" would be allowed in "container" and "list". Note that a > client that doesn't know anything about these mounts would see some > nodes in some unknown namespace; just like in the case that there is > an augment that the client doesn't know about.
+1, although I think the situation is not quite equal to an unknown augmentation: the mount point itself would be in an unknown namespace, but the nodes beneath it could actually match a namespace known to the client, right? Thanks, Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
