OK, got the reference. I felt it would have been better to mention why this "config" leaf has been defined in this draft by citing a reference to other drafts as has been done for the rest of the leaves. As a reader, I was left wondering as to why there should be a leaf that over-rides the actual "config" true definition of the mounted models. If indeed the goal is to allow only "read" access why not use the NACM way for it ?
With Regards, Rohit From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com] Sent: 21 December 2018 17:41 To: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrran...@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about Schema Mount "config" leaf Hi Rohit, Are you familiar with either of the LNE or NI model drafts? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/ I believe both of these drafts were driving some of the key schema mount requirements, and may provide useful examples of the use cases. On 21/12/2018 12:01, Rohit R Ranade wrote: Hi All, +--ro mount-point* [module label] +--ro module yang:yang-identifier +--ro label yang:yang-identifier +--ro config? boolean 1. When reading the schema mount draft it is not clear for which use-case, the "config" being false will be helpful for ? Section 3 of the LNE draft writes about the use of this config leaf. 2. If there are modules with config true nodes mounted, how can the data-nodes of those mounted modules be instantiated if the config leaf is false ? There will likely be separate direct YANG management protocol access to the mounted data (e.g. for a mounted LNE) that would allow the configuration to be manipulated. Thanks, Rob With Regards, Rohit _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
