On 8/3/16, 5:02 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > >On 03/08/2016 07:49, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 02 Aug 2016, at 18:35, Balazs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> If we allow foo and foo-state for opstate, mounting models atop such a >>>multi rooted yang module will be fun. >>> mount modB-config-part onto modA-config-part >>> mount modB-state-part onto modA-state-part >>> One mount becomes two and you have to maintain parallel mounts >>>otherwise you are mounting half modules. >> This is already happenning with augments. It means some work but >>nothing terribly complex. >> >>> Actually the problem is not caused by opstate, but rather by >>>multi-rooted models. but avoiding foo-state would make life easier once >>>more. >> We already agreed that some items (such as RIBs) are "true" state which >>don't have direct counterparts in configuration. If we don't have >>foo-state, where are these supposed to be placed? >One choice is that they could just be placed under foo, where foo is a >config false leaf. While there is a NETCONF/RESTCONF incompatibility with config-false data nodes under config-true data nodes, there is no problem with the reverse - correct? Thanks, Acee > >Rob > > >> >> Lada >> >>> regards Balazs >>> >>> -- >>> Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. >>> Senior Specialist >>> Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: balazs.leng...@ericsson.com >>> >> -- >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >> >> >> >> >> . >> > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >netmod@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
