Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I like the term "integrated" better than "use-schema". But both cases are mounted, so we need another term than "mounted" for "inline". "segregated" doesn't sound quite right ;-) /martin > > > 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
