Hi, -----Original Message----- From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:32 PM To: Yemin (Amy) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09
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. [Amy] A concrete example would be even better! 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
