Hi Lada, If the consensus is not split the document, I think it would be useful to formally define the “inline” and “uses” options with examples very early. As it is, there is a brief definition of “inline” but nothing for “uses” and one must deduct this implicitly.
Thanks, Acee On 11/15/17, 1:23 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >Hi, > >regarding my proposed reorganization of documents: I strongly disagree >with >Martin's comment on jabber that it would be a mere split of the contents >into >two documents. It is certainly not true because > >- we could get rid of the use-schema/inline choice in schema-mounts data: >the >inline case needs to state data in the parent tree at all > >- there are many CLRs that are relevant only to one of the methods, so >have to >distinguish the cases in the text; for example, parent-references don't >apply to >"inline" > >- (most important for me) the two methods are really two different >mechanisms, >and the "inline" method invites various instance-related considerations >whereas >"use-schema" doesn't; it's been my experience that people keep confusing >schema >construction and instance data mounting. > >Lada > >-- >Ladislav Lhotka >Head, CZ.NIC Labs >PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > >_______________________________________________ >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
