Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-08

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 11/8/2017 4:50 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> The "use-schema" case shouldn't pose big problems because it is
>>> essentially an externally specified augment. The "inline" case is
>>> somewhat disturbing though: could the embedded YANG library instances
>>> be different in different datastores?
>> YANG Library is only available in <operational> (it's all config false).
>> I think you mean the embedded YANG Library instances under the mount
>> points.  Yes, you may have a problem here.  Still, this isn't my question,
>> is more about schema-mounting requirements across datastores.  E.g., if
>> a schema-mount exists in <running>, must it existing in <intended> and
>> <operational> as well?  Conversely, if a schema-mount exists in
>> <operational>, must it exist in <running>?  I think this draft should
>> clarify such things.
> I agree that this needs to be clarified.  This issue partly comes from
> the fact that schema mount uses the groupings in the old yang
> library.  I think we need to use the new groupings from rfc7895bis.
> 

We previously discussed this point an chose not to use rfc7895bis as we 
wanted to allow current implementations to add support NIs/LNEs with 
minimal additional work, and specifically not require support for 
rfc7895bis and NMDA to support LNEs/NIs (and consequently schema mount).

I do think it would be good to have rfc7895bis supersede 
ietf-yang-schema-mount by incorporating its functionality, but that 
wouldn't be a change to this document.

Lou