Re: [netmod] draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount: Namespace issues

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:56:40PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > The fact that anydata can represent "really anything" does not mean
> > that every server MUST allow the client to create "really anything"
> > for all anydata config nodes.  It will depend on the semantics of each
> > particular anydata node.
> 
> Schema validation is effectively disabled for anydata nodes. This may be
> a problem especially for implementations that perform validation as a
> separate step, perhaps automatically from the data model.
> 
> And with schema validation out of the way, it is easier to exploit
> potential bugs in the server.
>

Lada, as far as I recall you wrote an I-D that proposed to mount data
anywhere. So what did change your mind that you now want strict schema
validation?

> > I think that using mount-point as a substatement to anydata is in fact
> > the only really safe option to mount.  Both the proposed solutions in
> 
> Well, if safe means (partial) compatibility of old clients - and I am
> not even convinced about this. Otherwise it is IMO less safe because the
> schema is loosened.
> 
> > the current structural mount and ysdl drafts are unsafe for clients
> > that don't understand the mount.
> 
> True.

What do you mean with 'partial' compatibility? I also do not
understand which schema is 'loosened'? Can you give me an example of
'partial' compatibility and 'loosened' schema? Do you have a counter
proposal that avoids these issues?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>