Eric,
Great comments -- see below
On 3/1/2016 5:56 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> What I would like to see:
>
> (1) Terminology included which unambiguously partitions the functions of the
> three different type of mount options discussed in this WG (i.e., structural
> mount, alias mount, an
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:33:53PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:22:06PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:24:08PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > >>
> > >> No. Data that aren't in the schema
> On 04 Mar 2016, at 13:33, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:22:06PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:24:08PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
No. Data that aren't in the schema are clearly in
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:22:06PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:24:08PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> No. Data that aren't in the schema are clearly invalid.
> >>
> >
> > This is defined where? Anyway, if this is the cas
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:24:08PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> No. Data that aren't in the schema are clearly invalid.
>>
>
> This is defined where? Anyway, if this is the case, then both mount
I would say that if sending arbitrary rubbish along with YANG
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:24:08PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> No. Data that aren't in the schema are clearly invalid.
>
This is defined where? Anyway, if this is the case, then both mount
proposals are broken since both do not define the data mounted on a
mount point in the schema.
> But
> On 03 Mar 2016, at 16:38, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:18:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 03 Mar 2016, at 15:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:29:55PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Lou Berger writes:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:18:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 03 Mar 2016, at 15:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:29:55PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> Lou Berger writes:
> >>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> At last week's interim, Martin commit
> On 03 Mar 2016, at 15:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:29:55PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Lou Berger writes:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> At last week's interim, Martin committed to update his document based
>>> on the meeting and then work with the other moun
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:29:55PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Lou Berger writes:
>
> > All,
> >
> > At last week's interim, Martin committed to update his document based
> > on the meeting and then work with the other mount document authors
> > (i.e., Lada and Alex) on a future version. Mar
Lou Berger writes:
> All,
>
> At last week's interim, Martin committed to update his document based
> on the meeting and then work with the other mount document authors
> (i.e., Lada and Alex) on a future version. Martin has now
> published this version:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjork
What I would like to see:
(1) Terminology included which unambiguously partitions the functions of the
three different type of mount options discussed in this WG (i.e., structural
mount, alias mount, and peer mount).This would be needed even if only the
structural mount technology itself is
All,
At last week's interim, Martin committed to update his document based
on the meeting and then work with the other mount document authors
(i.e., Lada and Alex) on a future version. Martin has now
published this version:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount-02
13 matches
Mail list logo
