Hi Rohit, I am sorry that nobody answered your question, but I don't feel competent to do so because I don't like the way how the "shared-schema" case is currently modeled in the first place.
Lada Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Authors, > > Any suggestions regarding the question in the below mail ? > > With Regards, > Rohit > > From: Rohit R Ranade > Sent: 28 December 2018 09:37 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Schema Mount Yang Library Update > > Hi All, > > For the shared-schema type, the draft mentions "all instances of the same > mount point MUST have the same YANG library content identifier". > > I think to achieve above condition, most vendors will plan to have only one > YANG library instance for that mount-point. > > If use multiple instances for Yang library, it is possible that the algorithm > may generate a new content identifier for same data as per below statement in > Yang library 1.1 draft: > > "There is no requirement that the same information always results in the same > "content-id" value." > > > If use single instance of Yang library, when a YANG library update happens, > for which mount-point instance should a YANG library update notification be > sent ? > What is the guideline for the implementers of this draft regarding this point? > > With Regards, > Rohit -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
