> I believe this is the wrong direction, even if we rewrite the module > in the revised datastores document and split it into multiple modules. > A simple list of implemented datastores is cheap. It is flexible. It > does not require explanations and rules how definitions must be split > into modules that finally must be remembered and checked still in 5-10 > years from now. I firmly believe that these types of 'optimizations' > lead to creeping complexity down the road. Lets not create CLRs how > modules must be structued, named, etc.
That's a better answer. At least now I get the sense that you actually understood what I was saying. As for your proposal, I agree with you that it would be best to have an explicit list. I assume that this would be another proposed change to YANG Library (i.e., Section D.2 in the revised-datastores draft). It will be tricky to enforce the use of this version of YANG Library in RESTCONF without a -bis document... K. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
