Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > ....
> > >
> > > I do not understand the need for a yang-data structure that represents
> > data
> > > that can be instantiated anywhere and everywhere.
> >
> > AFAIK noone is proposing that.
> >
> > > I do not want to break
> > > existing tools that expect sibling data nodes in the same module
> > namespace
> > > to
> > > be unique local-names.
> > >
> > > I would rather stick with the yang-data in RFC 8040 than introduce a new
> > > extension
> > > with no restrictions. Standard YANG extensions should be interoperable
> > and
> > > have
> > > a clear purpose.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > > If we do not need to define what a YANG extension does in
> > > a way that can be observed somehow, then it does not need to be a
> > standard.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Not sure how any of this helps with the original issue though.
> >
> >
>
> You proposed that duplicate nodes were OK:
>
> module X {
> prefix x;
>
> x:yang-data A {
> list foo { ... }
> }
>
> x:yang-data B {
> container foo { ... }
> }
>
> }
>
>
> I do not want to allow any duplicates.
Yes, I got that.
> There are no encoding and parsing rules for instance data
> that support this sort of duplicate.
This is not correct, as I have demonstrated earlier, and I think you
also accepted; if different structures are defined for different rpcs'
error-infos, then these structures can have the same child node names.
I think that we have to agree on the basics before disussing
solutions:
1) Should we do anything at all?
(i.e., keep using yang-data in RFC 8040)
2) Should we define structures that only can be used in
standalone instance documents?
(i.e., *more* restrictive than yang-data in RFC 8040)
3) Should we define structures that can be used in standalone
instance documents, error-info contents, and other places that
we might not know right now?
(i.e., *less* restrictive than yang-data in RFC 8040)
Since the current draft says:
The "yang-data" extension statement from RFC
8040 [RFC8040] is defined for this purpose, however it is limited in
its functionality.
The intended use of the "yang-data" extension is to model all or part
of a protocol message, such as the "errors" definition in ietf-
restconf.yang [RFC8040], or the contents of a file. However,
protocols are often layered such that the header or payload portions
of the message can be extended by external documents. The YANG
statements that model a protocol need to support this extensibility
that is already found in that protocol.
I thought we are doing (3).
/martin
> yang-data definitions define conceptual data nodes (e.g, /x:foo)
> Only one data-def-stmt (in yang-data or otherwise) can define a data node
> /x:foo.
> The descriptive names for the yang-data (A or B) do not define namespaces.
>
>
>
> > /martin
> >
> >
> Andy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
