Hi Rob, Thanks for clarification. By using the deviation, I can remove the containers I don't need, and I could also remove some data nodes within the container, right?
BTW, your reply provides a good guideline. Is it possible to include those text into the draft? BR, Amy -----Original Message----- From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 6:33 PM To: Yemin (Amy) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09 Hi Amy, On 27/03/2018 04:47, Yemin (Amy) wrote: > Hi all, > > I also have a question/comment regarding this draft, maybe if it's discussed > already. > > If there a model A, which I would like to use just part of model A in another > model B, what should I do? > The draft states that "This document allows mounting of complete data models > only. Other specifications may extend this model by defining additional > mechanisms such as mounting sub-hierarchies of a module." > It seems that the current schema mount doesn't support such usage. That is correct. > > > Then I'm thinking that using deviation to create a new sub-module A', then > mount the sub-module A' in model B. > Will it be a possible way out? If you have a module A, then you could create another module, A-deviations, that used deviation delete statements to remove parts of A's schema. Then a server could mount both modules A and A-deviations, hence excluding parts of module A at the mount point. However, this approach would not allow you to only mount a descendant subtree in A. E.g. You couldn't just directly mount the "interfaces/interface/statistics" container from RFC 8343, but you could mount the ietf-interfaces module and then deviate delete all nodes except for the interfaces/interface/statistics container. Thanks, Rob > > BR, > Amy > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09 > > Hi members, > > I comment on that draft: > > * Instead of "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set > of modules) is added to the data model starting at a non-root > location", this would read better: "it is often necessary that an > existing module (or a set of modules) be added to the data model at > locations other than the root." (Section 1) > > * 'The "mount-point" statement MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 > module' Why this documents keeps YANG 1 off from its scope? (Section > 3.1) > > * 'Specifically, a server that doesn?t support the NMDA, MAY implement > revision 2016-06-21 of "ietf-yang-library" [RFC7950] under a mount > point' [RFC7895] defines "ietf-yang-library", not [RFC7950] (Section > 6) > > * Why not "Tree Diagram" instead of "Data Model"? The wording has > become a Best Practice (Section 8) > > * Idem, "This document...has the following diagram" captures better the Best > Practice than "This document...has the following structure" > (Section 8) > > * Same remark on restricting to YANG 1.1: "The ?mount-point? statement > MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module, neither explicitly nor > via a ?uses? statement (description of the extension "mount-point") > > * Should this sentence refers only to [RFC6020]? "This document registers a > YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]" > (Section 10) > > * The document cites /schema-mounts as "The schema defined by this > state data provides detailed information about a server implementation > may help an attacker identify the server capabilities and server > implementations with known bugs" I think this section should warn also > on: > ** Section 2.1.2 and 4 of [RFC7895] (the list 'module' contains the leaf > 'schema': from which anyone may retrieve a YANG module) > ** Section 3 of [RFC6022] (it defines the RPC 'get-schema'; with which > anyone may get a YANG module) > ** and Section 5 of [RFC8341] (reminding administrators to set user > rights accordingly, and giving their defaults values). > > Regards, > Ariel > > [RFC6020] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020 > [RFC7895] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895 > [RFC7950] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950 > [RFC8341] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8341 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: > http://webmail.eurecom.fr > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > . > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
