IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] mount-point in anydata

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Thu, 19 January 2017 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6581296BF for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:52:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I_THt0BLG9cS for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2ADB1294E9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.137.2.13] (chello085216197060.chello.sk [85.216.197.60]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92C5A2401A2; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:52:29 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1484869949; bh=D0Zl83zU6ZnJZ06OH+l0z4qy1i0RsaoevcgkmpFndok=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lhDJchDvDTitM5f8GF69N+jOkI1ac1b5IfhRRFaSzFGud2tdvePe9BrhtWz8CO2th 73bzi7z7wPToXLDRoD54Sw+vO/NxfVHCnwOM6pXR89uY1qrDMZjLgygqlJCaDXfaHw mrPLUlDAOzDq3E6jd6xFREaOexhQn35xo+lumawo=
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <20170117.132913.781493366440105564.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Message-ID: <0aef5ef5-1ff2-f23e-d2aa-6a6dbab356fe@hq.sk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:52:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170117.132913.781493366440105564.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x53CtiD7IlhPhFBXtxOohHDpabusF9cxq"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/AGJyaBmTrAMIFExRoLcR7QQobPA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] mount-point in anydata
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:52:35 -0000

On 01/17/2017 01:29 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> For this reason, I propose that we go back to the previous model where
> "mount-point" would be allowed in "container" and "list".  Note that a
> client that doesn't know anything about these mounts would see some
> nodes in some unknown namespace; just like in the case that there is
> an augment that the client doesn't know about.

+1, although I think the situation is not quite equal to an unknown
augmentation: the mount point itself would be in an unknown namespace,
but the nodes beneath it could actually match a namespace known to the
client, right?

Thanks,
Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email