Martin Since you are doing an update, you might consider updating the definitions to point to the NMDA I-D rather than RFC6241 although configuration data is not defined in RFC7950 or NMDA.
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> To: <lber...@labn.net> Cc: <netmod@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1 Hi, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > Hi, > > The LNI/NI authors/RTG Area DT met yesterday and discussed the proposed > change as well as the other topics that came up in the subsequent > discussion. The high order bit is that the proposed and current > definitions are adequate for our needs. Read further if you care about > details, including confirming our understanding: > > 1) WRT xpath context change proposed by martin > > Our understanding is that absolute paths continue to be allowed Yes, this is correct. > , for > example the following remains valid: > > "use-schema": [ > { > "name": "ni-schema", > "parent-reference": [ > "/*[namespace-uri() = 'urn:ietf:...:ietf-interfaces']" > ] > } > ] > > Assuming yes, then we have no objection to the change (as it allows the > server implementor to choose how/if they support vrf name filtering. > Obviously, using the new syntax exposes the restriction to the client > which is probably desirable.) > > 2. parent-reference location is adequate for our needs. > This said, we think parent-references are more appropriately contained > within the schema list and having them there will yield less complex > operational data. > > 3. current mount point extension usage definition (must be in a list or > container). > Our use case is covered by always having a single mount point contained > in a container. We don't see the need for mount point extensions within > lists or for there to ever be siblings of mount point extensions. > > We don't see a need to discuss items 2 and 3 further at this time. > Assuming our understanding is correct, we will update the NI and LNE > draft as soon as schema mount is updated as proposed. Ok, since we haven't seen any objections to the proposal, I will update the schema mount draft accordingly. /martin > > Lou > (as contributor and NI/LNE draft co-author) > > > On 8/30/2017 5:29 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > FYI I've asked folks in the routing area, i.e., the ietf users of schema > > mount, if they have an opinion on the node discussion. I will also do so on > > the point I raised on parent reference location. (Which is independent from > > your format change.) Clearly, if I'm the only one to be raising objections, > > I'll be the one in the rough on these points. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Lou > > - as contributor > > > > > > On August 30, 2017 3:42:26 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > >> Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >>> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> writes: > >>> > >>>> Lada, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8/28/2017 10:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >>>>> Lou Berger píše v Po 28. 08. 2017 v 09:40 -0400: > >> [...] > >> > >>>>>> PS is your view aligned with martin or our example? > >>>>> If you mean shifting the XPath context node to the mount point instance, > >>> then > >>>>> yes. > >> So, going back to the original issue; does anyone have any objection > >> to changing the XPath context for parent-reference as describied in my > >> original post? > >> > >> > >> /martin > >> > _______________________________________________ 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