On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
...
My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need
to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support NMDA.
Right now to SM is independent of Yang Library version and can run
with either.
No this is not correct. SM uses a grouping from the old YANG
library (for the "use-schema" case),
I thought YLbis was an updat e to UL (i.e., no name change) as such SM
can include either.
and talks about mounting
"modules-state" ("inline" case).
In informative descriptions only. Certainly these can be changed to
allow for YL-bis if need be.
I certainly would expect use of Yang Library bis and nmda
to have advantages.
The implementation effort for supporting the new YL in clients and
servers is minimal, esp. when compared to the efforts involved in
supporting SM.
Adding an indirection is (for me) less important, but it has the
benefit of solving the two issues (a) and (b) above, and I haven't
seen any technical problem with it.
(A) has implementation implications and those participating in the
discussion at the time expressed as not being worth the cost.
I don't believe b was seen as a significant issue either.
Do you have any technical concerns with using an annotation as an
indirection?
The technicsl issue I have with the approaches the same one that was
raised when debated previously, ie the implementation overhead of
requiring inline schemas to be available at the top level.
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
we need to use the new YL-bis, so that we can support the NMDA.
Given that NMDA support is not yet fully defined, we're still in the
transition period where support for both NMDA and non-NMDA
implementations need to be considered. Rob presented some options
earlier in the thread that I think captures this.
Lou
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
