Hi Amy,
On 29/03/2018 08:09, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
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?
Yes.
BTW, your reply provides a good guideline. Is it possible to include those text
into the draft?
I'll leave this to the authors to decide.
A more realistic example may be helpful given that mine was slightly
contrived.
Thanks,
Rob
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
