On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 16:47 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:34:38PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > [...] define a special datastore for it, such as "error-messages". > > > > This seems worse than using, well, RFC 8040 yang-data. The proper > > Why it seems worse? > > Because this is not part of the NMDA. IMO, the yang-data defined in RFC 8040 has a clear purpose, and it is sufficient for that purpose, which is a YANG representation of an instance document (such as a protocol message or file). YANG is useful for defining data structures that can be represented in different formats, yet it is independent of any 1 format. I am in favor if keeping the yang-data in RFC 8040 and not creating a new version of it that is unconstrained. There does not seem to be consensus on how to do this, or even consensus that it is a good idea. > > clear solution for RPCs and actions would be to enable the definition > > of error details right in the rpc/action definition (input, output, > > error). > > Agreed. > > > > > But something like yang-data seems to have uses in other contexts. > > So other datastores may be defined. I assume that YANG library data can be > used > independently, not just on a NC/RC server, pretty much along the lines of > draft- > lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data. > > Lada > > > > Andy > > /js > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
