On 1/17/2018 11:26 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
But when we discussed this the last time having inline schema
available at the top level (in the SM module), the general consensus
was that having YL under inline was the preferred approach.
What is new now is that we have an indirection; each instance has its
own pointer to the schema at the top level. In the previous
discussion, having the schema at the top level implied that all
instances shared the same schema, and*that* was rejected.
Indirection was possible at the previous time and is part of the current
scheme Mount definition. Yes, you need to use different mount points to
reference different schema, but take a look at the ni document that's
exactly what we are doing there. So I don't believe this is the point that
What Martin and I are talking about is a mount point that is a list node of the
"use-schema" type. There is no way how different entries of this list could have
different schemas.
The same applies to a container mount point that is inside a list. Then you can
also have multiple*instances* of the mount point, and with "use-schema" there
is no way how these instances could have different schemas.
umm, if a server knows enough to use the right metadata indirection (per
current proposal), it would have also know enough to use the right mount
point and use-schema (in the old proposal). Again, the latter is what
we're doing to solve this *exact* problem for the non-inline case in the
NI draft.
The only thing new in the proposal is how to encode the indirection, it
doesn't change the fundamental points/discussion from when we decided on
the current solution.
Lou
Lada
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
