Hi,
I think it is a good start, here are my comments (some of them were
already raised by Jason):
- I like the fact that this work doesn't require any changes to YANG,
except perhaps semver.
- I think the augments to YANG library is a separate problem that should
perhaps be addressed in a different document. Servers supporting
multiple package revisions may not be that common.
- I was expecting that a package could specify a range of revisions for
some modules that may be used together with teh others. This doesn't
seem to be the case. If so, it would be somewhat unwieldy because every
combination of module revisions would require a separate package
revision.
- As Jason pointed out, there seems to be no use for the package
namespace, as packages don't define any names on their own.
- I would also prefer mandatory-features to be bundled with each module.
- This draft nicely shows that there is really no need for any
"yang-data" extensions. But I also don't see any benefit from using
ietf-yang-instance-data in this case. It would IMO be perfectly fine
to get rid of two levels of data hierarchy:
{ "ietf-yang-package:yang-package": {
...
}
}
Thanks, Lada
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
