On 02/24/2016 11:39 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
In your I-D (if I got this right), you only declare mount-points in the schema and then an implementation can mount whatever it likes on a mount-point. What is the use case for this? Why is it a feature to not express in the schema at design time what can be expected behind a mount point?
The use case for this is implemented in OpenDaylight, where the RESTCONF northbound exposes an ietf-network-topology (ancient draft), where each nt:node represents a network element accessible via NETCONF. Configuration and state of that network element is exposed as a mointpoint anchored at that particular node. Data exchange is mediated (and validated) by OpenDaylight. Models available are limited by the network element, OpenDaylight only interprets them at runtime (and pulls them from network element as needed).
Bye, Robert _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
