> On 03 Sep 2015, at 08:46, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
>> Martin,
>> 
>> On 9/2/2015 3:03 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> If it was done with
>>> 'mount' instead of the proposed model in
>>> draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00, it doesn't cost anything for
>>> the 99% (more?) of all systems that do not have this kind of logical
>>> systems, and data models would not have to augment the
>>> /device/logical-network-elements/logical-network-element path.
>> 
>> This is a compelling point (at least to me).  Of course there's lots of
>> details to flush out to make this work, but seems like it's worth
>> exploring this approach in more detail. 
>> 
>> The initial set of issues I see were in an earlier e-mail:
>> 
>> On 9/1/2015 9:45 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> That said, there are some specifics that will need to be addressed to > use 
>>> this approach: e.g. to quote: > Mounted data is "read-only" data.
>>> YANG-Mount does not extend towards RPCs that are defined as > part of
>> YANG modules whose contents is being mounted. > YANG-Mount does not
>> extend towards notifications. > Perhaps most of these limitations can be
>> relaxed for local mounts. > > Also handling when a device/server doesn't
>> support local mounts (or is > invalid) Lou
> 
> If this is viewed as a way to incorporate the schema defined in
> another module, rather than tie it to run-time behavior, there is no
> need to make it read-only.

Right, this discussion is about an alternative method for assembling a schema 
from modular parts whereas the mount draft deals with mediating access to 
remote datastores, which is something very different.

Lada

> 
> Further, with the addition of 'action' and inline notifications in
> YANG 1.1, we can make this handle RPCs and notifications at the
> top-level as well.  For example:
> 
>  module system {
>    ...
>    rpc shutdown { ... }
>  }
> 
>  module controller {
>    ...
>    list device {
>      key name;
>      leaf name { ... }
>      leaf addres { ... }
> 
>      mount system;
>    }
>  }
> 
> would behave similar (forgetting namespaces etc) to as if it was
> defined as:
> 
>  module controller {
>    ...
>    list device {
>      key name;
>      leaf name { ... }
>      leaf addres { ... }
> 
>      action shutdown { ... }
>    }
>  }
> 
> 
> Maybe we should try to find another term than 'mount',
> since it seems people think about the specific solution in
> draft-clemm-netmod-mount.  It might also be necessary to 'mount' parts
> of a module.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C




_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to