Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1 terminology

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

Martin

Since you are doing an update, you might consider updating the
definitions to point to the  NMDA I-D
rather than RFC6241 although configuration data is not defined in
RFC7950 or NMDA.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Bjorklund" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1


Hi,

Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The LNI/NI authors/RTG Area DT met yesterday and discussed the
proposed
> change as well as the other topics that came up in the subsequent
> discussion. The high order bit is that the proposed and current
> definitions are adequate for our needs. Read further if you care about
> details, including confirming our understanding:
>
> 1) WRT xpath context change proposed by martin
>
> Our understanding is that absolute paths continue to be allowed

Yes, this is correct.

> , for
> example the following remains valid:
>
> "use-schema": [
> {
> "name": "ni-schema",
> "parent-reference": [
> "/*[namespace-uri() = 'urn:ietf:...:ietf-interfaces']"
> ]
> }
> ]
>
> Assuming yes, then we have no objection to the change (as it allows
the
> server implementor to choose how/if they support vrf name filtering.
> Obviously, using the new syntax exposes the restriction to the client
> which is probably desirable.)
>
> 2. parent-reference location is adequate for our needs.
> This said, we think parent-references are more appropriately contained
> within the schema list and having them there will yield less complex
> operational data.
>
> 3. current mount point extension usage definition (must be in a list
or
> container).
> Our use case is covered by always having a single mount point
contained
> in a container. We don't see the need for mount point extensions
within
> lists or for there to ever be siblings of mount point extensions.
>
> We don't see a need to discuss items 2 and 3 further at this time.
> Assuming our understanding is correct, we will update the NI and LNE
> draft as soon as schema mount is updated as proposed.

Ok, since we haven't seen any objections to the proposal, I will
update the schema mount draft accordingly.


/martin


>
> Lou
> (as contributor and NI/LNE draft co-author)
>
>
> On 8/30/2017 5:29 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> > FYI I've asked folks in the routing area, i.e., the ietf users of
schema
> > mount, if they have an opinion on the node discussion. I will also
do so on
> > the point I raised on parent reference location. (Which is
independent from
> > your format change.) Clearly, if I'm the only one to be raising
objections,
> > I'll be the one in the rough on these points.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lou
> > - as contributor
> >
> >
> > On August 30, 2017 3:42:26 AM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >
> >> Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Lou Berger <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Lada,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/28/2017 10:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>>>> Lou Berger píše v Po 28. 08. 2017 v 09:40 -0400:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>>> PS is your view aligned with martin or our example?
> >>>>> If you mean shifting the XPath context node to the mount point
instance,
> >>> then
> >>>>> yes.
> >> So, going back to the original issue; does anyone have any
objection
> >> to changing the XPath context for parent-reference as describied in
my
> >> original post?
> >>
> >>
> >> /martin
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod