Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Yes, the namespace might be known to the client, but in a different place. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
