On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 13:27 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > It seems we're now just reiterating what has previously been discussed > *a lot*. IMO, highest prio is to resolve any issues related to YLbis.
I've always missed a technical merit in those discussions. It has always been like "I prefer that solution", "This is not how our implementation works", "It is good enough for LNE/NI" etc. But maybe I missed something so please point me to discussions that demonstrate why the adopted solution is better than what I am proposing. I am arguing that it is exactly the other way around. The inline and use-schema cases are different concepts and mixing them together makes the whole thing needlessly complex to describe and understand. > If we also need other clarifications to make the document easier to > understand, that's fine. But I don't think we should fundamentally > change the solution that the WG agreed upon. I don't agree that we are *strongly* changing the solution. Simplifications and clarifications are IMO badly needed. Lada > > > /martin > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 11:41 +0000, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > On 07/02/2018 10:29, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 11:14 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> 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 ;-) > > > > > > > > I would prefer to use the term "mount" only for the inline case and find > > > > something else for the use-schema case. The term "mount" evokes that > > some > > > > *instance* data being added, which is what happens in the "inline" case > > but > > > > not > > > > for "use-schema". > > > > > > Perhaps the "use-schema" case really is a type of "schema mount", where > > > as the "inline" case is a type of "mount". > > > > This may be quite confusing. My suggestion for "use-schema" is "external > > augment" - the mount point as a *schema node* plays a very similar role to > > the > > target node of an augment. > > > > > > > > Perhaps they could/should have entirely separate YANG models to describe > > > them. Possibly in the "use-schema" case could refer to grafting a > > > schema into a parent schema rather than mounting it. > > > > I proposed this previously. The inline case could in fact be considerably > > simplified because the extension statement is all that's needed - no state > > data. > > In other words, the "mount-point" extension would immediately indicate the > > inline mount. > > > > In order to distinguish the use-schema case (or whatever we call it) we have > > then two options: > > > > 1. use a different YANG extension for labelling mount points of this type > > > > 2. use schema node identifiers as in augments (i.e. no extension at all). > > > > Thanks, Lada > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /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 > > > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ladislav Lhotka > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
