Kent and Juergen: To summarize your messages:
a) a global datastore list b) Each datastore contains a list of modules it contains (currently done) c) Each module contains a list of datastores it supports. Is this correct? Or did I misunderstand. Sue -----Original Message----- From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:09 PM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01 > 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
