Hi,
hopefully others will chime in too, but here's my view (as a user
of schema mount, see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model)...
On 7/30/2018 7:27 PM, Hayden Brown wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to ask if it would be possible to clarify the intentions
around some of the wording of the draft schema mount standard
(Rev-10). In particular, regarding entries of the
/schema-mounts/mount-points list.
My interpretation is that the intended use of the
/schema-mounts/mount-points list entries are to specify the *parent
modules* that contain a mount point.
yes
Following on from this, the client should use the YANG library
instance to determine which schema options can be mounted at the root
of a mount point. This seems consistent with the examples of Appendix
A of the draft standard.
if you drop the word "options", then yes. Other examples can be found
in draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model
In this email I wanted to highlight the following sections of the
draft RFC below. In my view they seem to me to be somewhat ambiguous,
in implying that the mount-point list entries specify the /*child*
/module (sub-schema):
>From
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/?include_text=1
*Section 3.3 – Page 7*
> The "/schema-mounts" container has the "mount-point" list as one of its children. Every entry of this list
refers through its key to a mount point and specifies the mounted schema.
*Section 3.3 - Page 8*
> An entry of the "mount-point" list can specify the mounted schema in two different ways, "inline" or
"shared-schema".
*Section 9 - Page *13
> A mount point defines a place in the node hierarchy where other data models may be attached. A server that
implements a module with a mount point populates the
/schema-mounts/mount-point list with detailed information onwhich data
models are mounted at each mount point.
*Section 9 - Page *14
list mount-point {
key "module label";
description
"Each entry of this list specifies a schema for a particular mount
point.
I have reread the a few times and am having a hard time understand what
should be changed. Can you suggest specific changes that would address
your concern/comment? This might help to understand the issue you are
seeing.
The wording makes me wonder if these passages might actually just be
"left-over" context from earlier revisions of the draft standard
(Revision 8 and prior) -- effectively referring back to the
schema-mount '/use-schema/' list.
Again, I'm seeing the issue.
I do of course acknowledge that it is entirely possible that I've
misinterpreted the wording of the passages above, however if that is
the case, I suspect I may not be the only one in future.
And I'm sure I'm suffering from having spent way too much time on this
topic so may be seeing things in the text that aren't actually there!
Cheers,
Lou
(no hats)
Many thanks for your time on this matter.
Best regards,
Hayden
On 20/07/2018 8:09 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:43:32AM +1200, hayden wrote:
I understand that the schema mount proposal is still effectively in a
state of flux, but are there any publicly visible implementations or
deployments of a NETCONF or RESTCONF server that those interested could
experiment with (e.g. to aid in client development)?
State of flux? It is past WG last call and IETF last call.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/history/
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
