Yes, I would be okay with that too. Regards, Rob
> -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> > Sent: 08 July 2021 11:13 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> > Cc: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>; Andy Bierman > <a...@yumaworks.com>; netmod@ietf.org; Benoit Claise > <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:30:27AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > It is perhaps worth noting that the NETCONF copy-config allows for the > configuration to be specified using any URI, but the server capabilities > announce which URI schemes are supported. > > > > Hence, I think that it is okay for the YANG model to use URI, but I think > > the > draft, and data node description should constrain the URI schemes that > allowed (perhaps file:// and https://). This would allow support for future > URI schemes to be added in a future revision of the YANG instance data > module, if required. > > > > I think it is not "allowed" but "mandatory to implement". We should > allow implementations to support an ftps:// scheme as long as there > is a common baseline. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
