Hi,
Some comments on the pre-09 version, particularly the data model.
1) I still don't get why this draft is called "YANG Schema Mount" rather
than "YANG Mount", since to me this implies that it *only* the schema
that is being made available, and by implication not the instance data.
I.e. I can see what schema a VM is using, but I cannot access the
instance data of that VM.
I understand the scope of the draft (and I'm not trying to change that
at all), and agree that it doesn't specify any protocol for how to
remotely mount data (e.g. peer mount). But my understanding of the
solution here is that it doesn't just mount the schema. I think that it
also always makes the mounted instance data available using the regular
NETCONF/RESTCONF operations right? Which sounds like it is doing more
than just mounting the schema!
2) Regarding the YANG Data Model:
(i) Should "schema-mounts" just be "mounts", since it is already under
the "schema" container.
(ii) Should "parent-references" be part of the "use-schema" container,
or should then be part of a schema directly. E.g. should schema-mount
augment yanglib:schema with both a "mounts" container and a
"parent-reference" leaflist.
(iii) Do we definitely need the namespace list? Shouldn't the
prefixes/namespaces be resolved against the implemented modules in the
referenced schema, or is this not sufficient? If this is not
sufficient, I wonder if it would be helpful for the draft to describe this.
(iv) I agree with Juergen that "inline" is a confusing term because it
is meaning that the mounted schema is available inline in the instance
data tree, not that it is inline in the schema tree.
Thanks,
Rob
On 31/01/2018 21:36, Kent Watsen wrote:
All,
The authors created a "pre09" branch on GitHub a few weeks back. On this
branch, they completed a full update of the draft. While waiting for details on how to
proceed with regards to a SM-bis, we thought it would be helpful to make this text
available now so that the technical parts can be discussed. With this in mind, can folks
please have a quick look and post any technical comments they have?
The "txt" version of the draft:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/netmod-wg/schema-mount/pre09/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-pre-09.txt
rfcdiff against the current -08 draft:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-08&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/netmod-wg/schema-mount/pre09/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-pre-09.txt
Since rfc7895bis obsoletes RFC 7895, the server-must-implement-rfc7895bis
requirement is no surprise, right?
Thanks,
Kent // shepherd
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
