Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Currently there is no explicit mechanism for a server to > > advertise which datastores is supports, other that the advertisment of > > features in "ietf-datastore". Maybe we should add an explicit list of > > supported datastores (but this will be protocol-dependent, since some > > protocols might not expose all datastores). > > The new dynamic datastores are (per this draft) advertised by being > listed in YANG Library. Only the "built in" datastores wouldn't have > a module-backing.
Actually, in the current draft, each module has a leaf-list of all datastores (not only dynamic) where the module is implemented. We have discussed various variations on this theme, but the current leaf-list is probably the simplest. > This is okay for the most part today as NETCONF has its capabilities > and RESTCONF has its unified datastore, but it does leave <intended> > hanging in the wind. > > Formally defining the built-in datastores as you suggest, using a > module to define their presence, would be nice from a consistency > perspective. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
