"t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz>
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 1:52 PM
> > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes:
> >
> > > This version fixes the XPath context for parent-reference.
> > >
> > > However, there is one more thing to discuss, which is the term
> "mount
> > > point".
> > >
> > > The current text says:
> > >
> > > - mount point: container or list node whose definition contains
> > > the "mount-point" extension statement. The argument of the
> > > "mount-point" statement defines the name of the mount point.
> > >
> > > So if we have:
> > >
> > > container top {
> > > container root {
> > > yangmnt:mount-point ni;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > There is one mount point, the node /top/root, with the name "ni".
> > >
> > > Pretty confusing... Does anyone have any comments around this?
> >
> > What about this?
> >
> > OLD
> >
> > - mount point: container or list node whose definition contains
> > the "mount-point" extension statement. The argument of the
> > "mount-point" statement defines the name of the mount point.
> >
> > NEW
> >
> > - mount point: container or list node whose definition contains
> > the "mount-point" extension statement. The argument of the
> > "mount-point" statement defines a label that is used for
> > referencing the mount point.
>
> Lada
>
> Trouble is 'label' is not a defined term in RFC7950 which leaves me (and
> others) wondering what is this undefined concept. I know plenty of
> languages that have the concept of a label but YANG is not one of them.
As Lada explained, currently we have two meanings of the term "mount
point name" - it means both the name of the container/list node, and
the argument to the extension. So the idea is to have a different
term for the latter.
> I looked to see what the ABNF says for inspiration but there isn't
> any:-) I think that there should be.
>
> I looked for a worked example for inspiration, nope, none of them
> either! What I mean is that in e.g. A.3 mount point with name root
> appears, but that is the only instance of 'root'. The whole point is
> that root should appear more than once, once for where the mount will
> be, and then once or more times for the part that will be mounted, so an
> example where name appears once is not an example IMHO!
I don't understand this. Can you elaborate?
/martin
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > Lada
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
