Hi Martin, If we use separate YLs for shared-schema, then during YL update there may be a small time gap, where-in all the YLs may not have generated the same content-id, violating one of the constraints for the shared-schema mount-point.
On a separate note, a mount-point is mentioned as shared-schema, so that the Client can leverage this information to store the schema only once and use it for parsing the data for all mount-point instances. Is there any other reason ? With Regards, Rohit -----Original Message----- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 January 2019 18:36 To: Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Schema Mount Yang Library Update Hi, I think the only reasonable answer is that this behavior must not be dependent on your implementation strategy so the answer must be the same if you choose to use a shared YL or separate YLs. Hence, if a mount point's YL changes, the notif is sent from that instance. /martin Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
