Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-04 Thread Andy Bierman
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen > wrote: > > [Re: moving the definition of rc:yang-data to a new document] > > > > > > > > We went through

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-04 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Andy Bierman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: [Re: moving the definition of rc:yang-data to a new document] > > > > > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040. > > > > > There was no concern about this

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-02 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, The use-cases for groupings/uses and augment are not identical. Alternative NMDA Approach: I don't see a big difference between defining YANG for an artifact vs. defining some YANG for a special-purpose datastore. There is nothing about the YANG data that is different. There are only

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-02 Thread Kent Watsen
>> Gotcha. What do other people think, would a "uses-yang-data" >> statement be generally more useful? > > But does this mean we also do uses-yang-container, uses-yang-list, > uses-yang-xyz to other definitions as well? I do not think this is > desirable and why would yang-data be any

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-01 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:21:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > The grouping approach only works for 'B' if the definition of 'A' > had the foresight to define a grouping 'B' could use, but 'C' could > be out of luck. This is generally true. YANG kind of require to design something for reuse

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-01 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > I am not sure any new construct is needed at all. > > > The current definition covers it. > > > > > > Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive > nor conducive to downstream

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-01 Thread Kent Watsen
> I am not sure any new construct is needed at all. > The current definition covers it. Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive nor conducive to downstream extensions… > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040. > There was no concern about

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-01 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > I'd like to start a discussion about adopting this draft...or something > like it (see below). > > The primary driver for wanting to expedite this draft is that it is being > discussed as a required aspect of a chartered

[netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

2017-09-01 Thread Kent Watsen
I'd like to start a discussion about adopting this draft...or something like it (see below). The primary driver for wanting to expedite this draft is that it is being discussed as a required aspect of a chartered NETCONF WG effort to define a new encoding for YANG's 'notification' statement.