Re: [netmod] Comments on instance data draft rev -02

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
> First, I agree with Jürgen that the "target" terminology confused me,

+1

> especially so given you have target-module and inline-target-spec.  Like
> Jürgen and Rob said, "schema" seems to work better.

Since we have "content-data", perhaps use "content-schema"?

And a question:  why is the "name" leaf mandatory?

/martin

> And maybe
> "inline-schema-module-spec" would be clearer that the spec modifies the
> modules from which the schema is generated.
> 
> To the point about yang-data-ext/structure, I see instance data was very
> useful, but it's a must to be able to augment its metadata.  YANG
> Catalog would use that.  If this draft moves forward without
> sx:structure, then I think it would need to be straight YANG so that
> augments will work (i.e., a schema element would exist to augment).
> 
> A few other comments (minor):
> 
> Section 2.1:
> 
> "P2 Re-use existing formats similar to the <get> operation/request"
> 
> Isn't the format similar to a <get> _response_ versus the request?
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 3
> 
> s/and and/and/
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod