Hi, I'm not sure if these changes make the doc better. "how the schema is mounted" is not just "inline" / "shared-schema", but there is also the "config" leaf. And having to repeat that in many places makes the text a bit clumsy imo. Maybe others can chime in as well?
/martin Hayden Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thank you for your comments. Ok, agreed - it would be better to not introduce > a new mounted-schema 'type' term. Perhaps the wording "how the schema is > mounted" is a better alternative? > I've provided possible wording suggestions again below in brackets. > > > Section 3.3 – Page 7 > The "/schema-mounts" container has the "mount-point" list as one of its > children. Every entry of this list refers through its key to a mount point > and specifies [how the schema is mounted, as either "inline" or > "shared-schema"]. > > > Section 3.3 - Page 8 > An entry of the "mount-point" list can specify [how the schema is mounted] in > two different ways, "inline" or "shared-schema". > > > Section 9 - Page 13 > A mount point defines a place in the node hierarchy where other data models > may be attached. A server that implements a module with a mount point > populates the /schema-mounts/mount-point list with detailed information on > [whether the data models mounted at each instance of a mount point MAY be > different ("inline" case) or if they MUST all have the same YANG library > checksum ("shared-schema" case). ] > > [For a "shared-schema" mount-point list entry, the entry MAY include one or > more "parent-reference" list entries that are used to specify the context > nodeset for any XPath 1.0 expressions defined within the mounted schema.] > > > Section 9 - Page 14 > list mount-point { > key "module label"; > description > "Each entry of this list specifies [how the] schema for a particular > mount point [is mounted ("inline" or "shared-schema"). ] > > > Regards, > Hayden > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 6 August 2018 11:06 PM > To: Hayden Brown > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [netmod] Fwd: Re: YANG schema mount - any early > implementations? > > Hi, > > Hayden Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lou, > > > > > > Thank you for your response. In the new copy of the sections below I've > > attempted to convey how I think the paragraphs could read. > > > > > > In my mind, the main "point of ambiguity" is that it seemed the existing > > wording implies: > > > > * the mount-point list specifies which modules are mounted below the > > root of the mount point. > > > > however, I think we have all agreed that: > > > > * the mount-point list specifies the parent module that contains the > > mount-point,. > > > > I see this as just a subtle interpretation difference in the wording > > "specifies the mounted schema". > > > > > > > > Hopefully the wording (edited in the brackets) below better conveys my > > thoughts. Please feel free to correct me, or improve the wording below as > > you see fit. > > > > Section 3.3 – Page 7 > > > The "/schema-mounts" container has the "mount-point" list as one of its > > > children. Every entry of this list refers through its key to a mount > > > point and specifies the [type of] mounted schema [as "inline" or > > > "shared-schema"]. > > > > Section 3.3 - Page 8 > > > An entry of the "mount-point" list can specify the [type of] mounted > > > schema in two different ways, "inline" or "shared-schema". > > The document does not define the "type" of a mounted schema, so I > don't think we should use that term in just a few places. > > > Section 9 - Page 13 > > > A mount point defines a place in the node hierarchy where other data > > > models may be attached. A server that implements a module with a mount > > > point populates the /schema-mounts/mount-point list with detailed > > > information on whether the [data models mounted at each instance of a > > > mount point MAY be different ("inline" case) or MUST all have the same > > > YANG library checksum ("shared-schema" case). > > > > For a "shared-schema" mount-point list entry, the entry MAY include one or > > more "parent-reference" list entries that are used to specify the context > > nodeset for any XPath 1.0 expressions defined within the mounted schema.] > > > > > > Section 9 - Page 14 > > list mount-point { > > key "module label"; > > description > > "Each entry of this list specifies [the type of] schema for a > > particular mount point [ ("inline" or "shared-schema") ]. > > > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > > > Hayden > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Lou Berger <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2018 7:28 a.m. > > To: Hayden Brown; [email protected] > > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [netmod] Fwd: Re: YANG schema mount - any early > > implementations? > > > > > > Hi, > > > > hopefully others will chime in too, but here's my view (as a user of > > schema mount, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model)... > > > > On 7/30/2018 7:27 PM, Hayden Brown wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I just wanted to ask if it would be possible to clarify the intentions > > around some of the wording of the draft schema mount standard (Rev-10). In > > particular, regarding entries of the /schema-mounts/mount-points list. > > > > My interpretation is that the intended use of the > > /schema-mounts/mount-points list entries are to specify the parent modules > > that contain a mount point. > > > > yes > > > > Following on from this, the client should use the YANG library instance to > > determine which schema options can be mounted at the root of a mount point. > > This seems consistent with the examples of Appendix A of the draft standard. > > > > if you drop the word "options", then yes. Other examples can be found in > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model > > > > > > In this email I wanted to highlight the following sections of the draft RFC > > below. In my view they seem to me to be somewhat ambiguous, in implying > > that the mount-point list entries specify the *child* module (sub-schema): > > > > > > >From > > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/?include_text=1 > > Section 3.3 – Page 7 > > > The "/schema-mounts" container has the "mount-point" list as one of its > > > children. Every entry of this list refers through its key to a mount > > > point and specifies the mounted schema. > > > > Section 3.3 - Page 8 > > > An entry of the "mount-point" list can specify the mounted schema in two > > > different ways, "inline" or "shared-schema". > > > > > > Section 9 - Page 13 > > > A mount point defines a place in the node hierarchy where other data > > > models may be attached. A server that implements a module with a mount > > > point populates the /schema-mounts/mount-point list with detailed > > > information on which data models are mounted at each mount point. > > > > Section 9 - Page 14 > > list mount-point { > > key "module label"; > > description > > "Each entry of this list specifies a schema for a particular mount > > point. > > > > > > I have reread the a few times and am having a hard time understand what > > should be changed. Can you suggest specific changes that would address > > your concern/comment? This might help to understand the issue you are > > seeing. > > > > > > The wording makes me wonder if these passages might actually just be > > "left-over" context from earlier revisions of the draft standard (Revision > > 8 and prior) -- effectively referring back to the schema-mount 'use-schema' > > list. > > > > Again, I'm seeing the issue. > > > > > > I do of course acknowledge that it is entirely possible that I've > > misinterpreted the wording of the passages above, however if that is the > > case, I suspect I may not be the only one in future. > > And I'm sure I'm suffering from having spent way too much time on this > > topic so may be seeing things in the text that aren't actually there! > > > > Cheers, > > Lou > > (no hats) > > > > > > Many thanks for your time on this matter. > > > > Best regards, > > Hayden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20/07/2018 8:09 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:43:32AM +1200, hayden wrote: > > > > > > > > I understand that the schema mount proposal is still effectively in a > > > > state of flux, but are there any publicly visible implementations or > > > > deployments of a NETCONF or RESTCONF server that those interested could > > > > experiment with (e.g. to aid in client development)? > > > > > > > > State of flux? It is past WG last call and IETF last call. > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/history/ > > > > > > > > /js > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[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
