Joe Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > First, I agree with Jürgen that the "target" terminology confused me,
+1 > especially so given you have target-module and inline-target-spec. Like > Jürgen and Rob said, "schema" seems to work better. Since we have "content-data", perhaps use "content-schema"? And a question: why is the "name" leaf mandatory? /martin > And maybe > "inline-schema-module-spec" would be clearer that the spec modifies the > modules from which the schema is generated. > > To the point about yang-data-ext/structure, I see instance data was very > useful, but it's a must to be able to augment its metadata. YANG > Catalog would use that. If this draft moves forward without > sx:structure, then I think it would need to be straight YANG so that > augments will work (i.e., a schema element would exist to augment). > > A few other comments (minor): > > Section 2.1: > > "P2 Re-use existing formats similar to the <get> operation/request" > > Isn't the format similar to a <get> _response_ versus the request? > > === > > Section 3 > > s/and and/and/ > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
