Re: [netmod] Schema Mount Terminology Clarification

Ladislav Lhotka <> Wed, 12 December 2018 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9507112F1AC for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:44:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 YM7f_LC0tD0T for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62FAC12777C for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:d850:7cff:fe67:4574]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 681BD616C4 for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:44:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1544611442; bh=O2sWOZor+Nfy1Msk7bppCLUwDb9USjubfDjLOrk+loY=; h=From:To:Date; b=eSo3PK2DVo0YHGqNzGt/nD0JnkgZDpcka1tDQEE3p32txyziZBZ8gh2xnMlI24MIH bzgBPMXnSL73bu3zRc8vppRy2RvN0EJHy5JkL7lXr4kmLrH+rkSCJkZMH5hb8wGnBT 2aGye+CIUqYwV7oWnyZMTKaSDRqNGbw85OY1sRGQ=
Message-ID: <>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:44:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Schema Mount Terminology Clarification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:44:09 -0000

Hi Rehat,

On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 10:12 +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi,
> 1..       The term “data model” is used many times in this document, but it is
> not defined in this document but defined in RFC 7950. I think it should be
> added under the “following terms are defined in [RFC7950]” part.

The definition of "data model" in RFC 7950 is too informal. What is meant by it
in the schema mount document is basically "datastore schema" as defined in RFC
8342. Perhaps a better term would just be "schema".

> 2..       The term “This document allows mounting of complete data models
> only” is used in Section 1. I think here “complete data model” should be
> replaced by “schema tree” as it is more precise?

No, "schema tree" is only for a single module, accrding to the definition in
7950. What is meant here is a schema of multiple modules, as defined by YANG

> a)         RFC 7950 , schema tree: The definition hierarchy specified within a
> module
> b)   RFC7950, data model: A data model describes how data is represented and
> accessed
> 3..       The “data model” term is used many times Eg: “LNE's data model”,
> “share the same data model”, “NI data model”, “mounting one data model
> consisting of any number of YANG modules”   etc, sometimes using the term
> “data model” as a collection of YANG modules and sometimes for a single Yang
> module. I feel, where-ever we refer to single Module, we need to use the term
> “schema tree” and when we refer to collection of YANG modules, we can refer to
> as Data Model.. Please provide your opinions.

This was my original idea, but maybe it is better to use "schema" or "datastore
schema" for the latter.


> With Regards,
> Rohit  
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67