Rob,
I think chris spoke to this (indirectly) in an earlier mail -- that
the current approach of not specifying is most flexible from a future
proof stand point, i.e., we really don't want to specify based on what
exists in today's rapidly moving environment.
We have also discussed the possibi
Lou, Martin,
Is the network-instance schema-mount (from
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model) an example of where it would be
useful to indicate which modules would be expected to be mounted at that
point?
Certainly it would seem that there are particular modules that you would
expect to be m
Rob/Martin,
On February 26, 2016 6:01:23 AM Robert Wilton wrote:
On 26/02/2016 07:25, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Robert Wilton wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
I think the
On 26/02/2016 07:25, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Robert Wilton wrote:
On 25/02/2016 08:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
to rearrang
Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 25/02/2016 08:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>
> I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> to rearrange existing models i
On 25/02/2016 08:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some
definition of b
On 25/02/2016 11:16, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 25/02/2016 09:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100
Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 25/02/2016 09:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 25/02/2016 09:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Marti
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> > > >
> On 25 Feb 2016, at 10:05, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>
> I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > > > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> > > > to rearrange existing models into a beau
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> > > to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some
> > > definition of beauty).
> >
> > This would b
> On 25 Feb 2016, at 09:00, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 23:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:30:40PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:08:0
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> > to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some
> > definition of beauty).
>
> This would be pretty complicated. Suppose I define my o
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:00:54AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > 3. This mechanism seems incompatible with groupings, or at least I
> > cannot imagine how such a mount could be handled inside a grouping.
> >
> > BTW, the last item also applies to Martin's mount-point extension:
> > if it
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:30:40PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > 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 mo
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 24 Feb 2016, at 23:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:30:40PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2016, at 23:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:30:40PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
In yesterday's meeting, Lou (I think?) ment
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:30:40PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund 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
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 ti
-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Alexander Clemm (alex)
Cc: Martin Bjorklund ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] explicit mount
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:04:00PM +, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote:
&g
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 mo
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:30:40PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > 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-
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 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 t
[mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:10 AM
To: Martin Bjorklund
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] explicit mount
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In yesterday's meeting
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 draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model; the need
for being able to s
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.
> Somethin
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 draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model; the need
> >>> for being
> 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 mount directly in the sch
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 mount directly in the schema.
>> Something like this:
>>
>> container root {
>>ymnt:mount-p
> On 23 Feb 2016, at 16:08, 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.
> Something like th
> On Feb 23, 2016:10:08 AM, at 10:08 AM, 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.
> S
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.
Something like this:
container root {
ymnt:mount-point "lne" {
ymnt:mount
36 matches
Mail list logo
