On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:25:52PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote: > > I think that the term "external" could also be confusing, since I think that > sort of implies peer mount like semantics.
The "inline" mount concept seems to subsume peer mounts. From the model perspective, is there a difference whether the mounted data is local or remote (and what does local/remove mean for a VM)? > I would suggest the term "dynamic" instead of "inline " but that could > easily be confused with dynamic datastores. Yes, I think this is not a good word either. > Perhaps rather than "inline" another choice could be "discoverable", i.e. > the schema is not known, and is dynamically discoverable inline at the mount > point. > Equally, rather than "use-schema", perhaps a better choice would be "known", > i.e. the schema is already known, and made available as part of YANG > library. Perhaps integrated schema vs. mounted schema. > Whether it would be right to change these at this time, I've no idea ... Yep. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
