Martin,
I do agree with that at some point we will need to revisit scheme mount in
the context of YL-bis, as there are different possible solutions for
handling different datastores mounting different schema. I think Rob laid
out the options pretty well here, ie doing it now or publishing as is and
immediately working on the document that covers both.
As I mentioned before I think this is as much a process issue as anything
else - and have a planned call to discuss possible directions with chairs.
I hope we can have some propose next steps on this to the working group in
short order.
Lou
On January 18, 2018 2:57:23 AM Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
...
>>> My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need
>>> to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support NMDA.
>>>
>> Right now to SM is independent of Yang Library version and can run
>> with either.
> No this is not correct. SM uses a grouping from the old YANG
> library (for the "use-schema" case),
I thought YLbis was an updat e to UL (i.e., no name change) as such SM
can include either.
The old "modules-state" structure is deprecated, and a new structure
that allows multiple datastores is defined. Note that YLbis can be
used by both NMDA-capabale and non-NMDA-capabale servers.
> and talks about mounting
> "modules-state" ("inline" case).
In informative descriptions only. Certainly these can be changed to
allow for YL-bis if need be.
>> I certainly would expect use of Yang Library bis and nmda
>> to have advantages.
>>
>>> The implementation effort for supporting the new YL in clients and
>>> servers is minimal, esp. when compared to the efforts involved in
>>> supporting SM.
>>>
>>> Adding an indirection is (for me) less important, but it has the
>>> benefit of solving the two issues (a) and (b) above, and I haven't
>>> seen any technical problem with it.
>>>
>> (A) has implementation implications and those participating in the
>> discussion at the time expressed as not being worth the cost.
>> I don't believe b was seen as a significant issue either.
>>
>>> Do you have any technical concerns with using an annotation as an
>>> indirection?
>>>
>> The technicsl issue I have with the approaches the same one that was
>> raised when debated previously, ie the implementation overhead of
>> requiring inline schemas to be available at the top level.
> Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
> we need to use the new YL-bis, so that we can support the NMDA.
Given that NMDA support is not yet fully defined, we're still in the
transition period where support for both NMDA and non-NMDA
implementations need to be considered. Rob presented some options
earlier in the thread that I think captures this.
Again, note that YLbis supports both NMDA and non-NMDA servers.
Also note that YLbis is just a different read-only monitoring
structure. Given an implementation that supports the old YL, it is
trivial to add support for YLbis (especially compared to the more than
non-trivial amount of work required to support schema mount...).
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
