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

Robert Varga <> Tue, 31 May 2022 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3A9C157B43 for <>; Tue, 31 May 2022 09:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.985
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id drfP7mAeS2_m for <>; Tue, 31 May 2022 09:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2B5C157903 for <>; Tue, 31 May 2022 09:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 656132478EE; Tue, 31 May 2022 18:09:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1654013390; bh=Dy6QDHB9s3GNg5S71DqlKoRB3UdTAjftRF/UrqXCUO0=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=no9tlcy7+EI3gIGnc1RSnk7WhbYbiP2V9jNEqEihiqhV6MrUjov3kdTcnIzkPjS3k WTtCiR7vwiQX/ds9E/R5y3tkLRdSnYgeCjJnBkXtC47jznVBiqce6t12N7CEjCrI6P hw543UrF+psOIp00DdlqXjgMDCJO3+yW987BepZY=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 18:09:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Kent Watsen <>, Martin Björklund <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Robert Varga <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------LUZ7xcH617xqA7G98fVW02kr"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Does defining a feature require the module be implemented?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 16:09:58 -0000

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.