Re: [netmod] Does defining a feature require the module be implemented?

[Robert Varga <[e-mail]>]

Hello Kent,

On 18/05/2022 16:30, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> 3) I wish more modules would following the pattern of having the global 
> protocol accessible tree be defined via a "uses" of a grouping defined 
> in the module.   In another recent project, I had to hack the topology 
> modules defined in RFC 8345 (to convert the containers to groupings) to 
> enable a multiplicity of "abstract network topologies" to be configured. 
>   The assumption that only a single global instance is ever needed is 
> proving to be invalid in my work time and again.

/me puts the co-author hat on.

The multiplicity is already built-in into the model by the fact that 
network topologies is a top-level list.

Would you mind sharing the use case what requires multiplicity of the 
built-in multiplicity?

I know this sort-of is a re-hash of the ietf-interfaces discussion, but 
while there the use-case is well understood, I wonder what equivalent is 
there for networks/topologies.

Thanks,
Robert