Re: [netmod] explicit mount

On 02/24/2016 11:39 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: In your I-D (if I got this right), you only declare mount-points in the schema and then an implementation can mount whatever it likes on a mount-point. What is the use case for this? Why is it a feature to not express in the schema at design

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:04:00PM +, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote: > Juergen, I think you are correct. Also alias-mount and peer-mount (not just > schema-mount) specify mountpoints in the schema. They are not about mounting > arbitrary data in arbitrary places, but defining a model with

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

Juergen, I think you are correct. Also alias-mount and peer-mount (not just schema-mount) specify mountpoints in the schema. They are not about mounting arbitrary data in arbitrary places, but defining a model with mountpoints declared. --- Alex -Original Message- From: netmod

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG Virtual Interim Meeting: 22 February 2016

> From: Nadeau Thomas, February 24, 2016 9:20 AM > > > On Feb 23, 2016:6:21 PM, at 6:21 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) > wrote: > > > > Hi Kent, > > > > Thanks for running the interim, I agree it was quite useful. > > > > One thing I wanted to pull out from the minutes was the overall

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

On 02/24/2016 04:25 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 24 Feb 2016, at 15:48, Kent Watsen wrote: Hi Lada, In yesterday's meeting, Lou (I think?) mentioned a use case for mount that is not documented in

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > In yesterday's meeting, Lou (I think?) mentioned a use case for mount > that is not documented in draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model; the need > for being able to specify modules to mount directly in the schema. >

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

> On 24 Feb 2016, at 15:48, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Hi Lada, > > > > > > >>> In yesterday's meeting, Lou (I think?) mentioned a use case for mount >>> that is not documented in draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model; the need >>> for being able to specify modules to

Re: [netmod] 'predicate' production

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > another ABNF issue: > >predicate = "[" *WSP (predicate-expr / pos) *WSP "]" > >predicate-expr = (node-identifier / ".") *WSP "=" *WSP > ((DQUOTE string DQUOTE) / > (SQUOTE

[netmod] 'predicate' production

Hi, another ABNF issue: predicate = "[" *WSP (predicate-expr / pos) *WSP "]" predicate-expr = (node-identifier / ".") *WSP "=" *WSP ((DQUOTE string DQUOTE) / (SQUOTE string SQUOTE)) pos =

[netmod] Both draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata and draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json are now moved IETF LC ...

Dear all, ... thanks to the new draft versions posted today. I thought I would let you know. Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. Title : Defining and Using Metadata with YANG Author : Ladislav Lhotka Filename:

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03

On 2/24/2016 11:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: [...] "The 'md:annotation' statement can appear only at the top level of a YANG module." I don't understand what the top is? You mean, after the import statements. Should pyang

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: [...] > "The 'md:annotation' statement can appear only at the top level of a YANG > module." > > I don't understand what the top is? You mean, after the import statements. > Should pyang check this? If yes, how? I think the

[netmod] Terminology => YANG module versus YANG data model versus YANG model : please don't use "YANG model" any longer

Dear all, Reviewing some NETMOD documents these days, I realized that we're sometimes not consistent regarding terminology: YANG module, YANG data model, YANG model. Example: All three can be found in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt and

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG Virtual Interim Meeting: 22 February 2016

Hi Eric, I agree with you that it is important to distinuguish the construction of a data model schema from mechanisms for combining data trees, and I believe the term "mount" is mostly connected to the latter (as in NFS mount). FWIW, the YSDL draft doesn't use the term "mount" at all. I'd