Hi, after listening to the presentation of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful.
The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but their tree in fact is +--rw device +--rw info | +--rw device-type? enumeration +--rw hardware +--rw interfaces | +--rw interface* [name] | ... +--rw qos So the "interfaces" container is no more a top-level node. There are three possible options: 1. Change the ietf-interfaces module. 2. Replicate its contents in another module. 3. Extend YANG so that a *specific* schema tree can be grafted at a given data node. IMO #1 & #2 are really bad. I thought Y34-04 was essentially #3 but it seems it is not so because it doesn't specify a concrete data model that's allowed at a given location. On the other hand, the only real contribution of "anydata" over "anyxml" is that is doesn't permit mixed content in XML, which is IMO not much. I know Y34 was already closed but I think it is more important to do things right before YANG 1.1 becomes an RFC. What I want to propose is this: - Rename "anydata" as a synonym to "anyxml", and deprecate "anyxml" (but keep it for backward compatibility). - Introduce a new statement and data node type, e.g. "root", that will extend the schema tree starting from that data node with a precisely specified data model. The specification can be same or similar as in yang-library. I believe there are other use cases in the existing modules. For example, the ietf-routing module could simply define the data model for a single routing instance (i.e. without "routing-instance" list at the top), and it can be then used without changes on simple devices, and more complex router implementations can graft it as a subtree under "routing-instance", "networking-instance" or whatever. Lada -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod