Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 16 January 2018 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2468C1314AC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 04:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lCTmnFz5Q4oK for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 04:26:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B121B1314A9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 04:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26731E0638 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:26:32 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id z0SU1w00n2SSUrH010SX27; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:26:32 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=doKrMxo4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=RgaUWeydRksA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=_uGserV50VcALC-ziA0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ZVvG44Nqbz4A:10 a=aztA8ZntzogA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=5/FqdPKeltHI90WpLe/G+bO/ey1vJf0kTBMg36ZmKxw=; b=XReRgC0ZPKf7QV+Oo23IKqdA5t ufQgDG5ODQhEvkYrVZJlJXfNXLMGLGvqmW/r2x4am4sjvByuIarDlcVQHJhBYW7dncq85ywzuUepE NR04KCsD6PEeC66BERRNfRXv5;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:44651 helo=[11.4.0.163]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1ebQJw-0033vc-IN; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:26:28 -0700
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:26:26 -0500
Message-ID: <160feef5550.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1516104404.11372.15.camel@nic.cz>
References: <1512747137.3467.71.camel@nic.cz> <87zi6kay8b.fsf@nic.cz> <30ba994a-96b5-880c-ea43-b67469933a94@labn.net> <1513663919.478.7.camel@nic.cz> <1606e810770.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <1513682591.2479.20.camel@nic.cz> <e8830510-e9ef-2179-8c83-763ce379777d@labn.net> <1513686995.2479.41.camel@nic.cz> <1cd9a729-d3ea-92e4-8954-bfb2c5a12424@labn.net> <1513690008.2479.70.camel@nic.cz> <3d436446-20d0-812e-134d-d148c8fcf2c0@labn.net> <1516086847.3188.24.camel@nic.cz> <160febbc230.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <1516104404.11372.15.camel@nic.cz>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.13.2-730 (build: 101300200)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1ebQJw-0033vc-IN
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([11.4.0.163]) [100.15.86.101]:44651
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 2
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/piWvCY5QKG-KzM5IPUtPSWw7Ogw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:26:46 -0000
Lada, On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> Lada, >> >> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the >> direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been > > It is no change in direction, just a simplification of the schema-describing > state data. Given the recent developments in 7895bis it makes no sense to me to > have two "schema" lists if we can have just one. > Managing transition is hard. It's also highlights why Yang Library this needs to be at least equally discussed in this group. I will talk with my co-chairs and perhaps the ADs to get their opinion on making such a change this point in the process. >> >> rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already with > > No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December 2017: > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19753.html > Oh, I certainly would call you proposing that the schema for inline be part of the rest of the schema Mount module well before that. I'm sure I can dig up mail / slides it really necessary... > The only reply was from you. To me, it is the cleanest solution of the inline > case. Of course, I am open to technical objections. > I'm sure I can find material on this as well.... Lou > If it's not clear what I mean, I can make up some examples. > > Lada > > >> the iesg that will need to be returned to their WGs if either change is made. >> >> Martin, >> >> Do share Lada's view? >> >> Lou >> >> >> On January 16, 2018 2:14:42 AM Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: >> >> > Hi Lou, >> > >> > in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes: >> > >> > 1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having a >> > parallel >> > list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted schemas directly in >> > the >> > YANG library and refer to them from schema-mounts structures. Juergen >> > suggested >> > this change and it is IMO the right thing to do. >> > >> > 2. Define a metadata annotation (e.g. @schema-ref) that would be required >> > for >> > inline mount point instances and specify the inline-mounted schema also by >> > referring to a schema specified in YANG library. >> > >> > The advantage of #2 is that an annotation can be attached equally well to >> > both >> > state an configuration data. So, instead of papering over the issue that >> > YANG >> > library (state data) cannot appear in configuration datastores, we can use >> > this >> > general and straightforward approach. This also allows for defining >> > different >> > mounted schemas for instances of the same mount point in different >> > datastores. >> > >> > I strongly believe that these changes (along with the new YANG library >> > schema >> > and NMDA) make for a simple and elegant datastore architecture in which >> > schema >> > mount would be an optional feature. >> > >> > Lada >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 16:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> > > Lada/Martin, >> > > >> > > I don't believe we reached closure on this discussion. The open issues >> > > relate to proposed new text (slightly modified): >> > > >> > > at the end of the section [3.2] adding a new paragraph along the >> > > lines of: >> > > >> > > The use of mount points does not impact the nature of the >> > > mounted data or in which data store information is made >> > > available. For example, mounted YANG Library modules define >> > > only operational state data and, as such, the information in >> > > these modules is available from operational data stores using >> > > the appropriate protocol operations. It is also worth >> > > noting that the Schema Mount module itself parallels the >> > > YANG Library module and only defines operational state data. >> > > >> > > Is this change acceptable? >> > > >> > > What other issues related to SM are outstanding? >> > > >> > > Thank you, >> > > >> > > Lou >> > > >> > > On 12/19/2017 8:26 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > > > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 07:49 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> > > > > On 12/19/2017 7:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > > > > > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:43 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> > > > > > > Hi Lada, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 12/19/2017 6:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> > > > > > > > > Lada, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > lada, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > See below. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > unfortunately, using an action for querying embedded >> > > > > > > > > > > > YANG >> > > > > > > > > > > > library >> > > > > > > > > > > > data >> > > > > > > > > > > > (needed for the "inline" case of schema mount) doesn't >> > > > > > > > > > > > work >> > > > > > > > > > > > either >> > > > > > > > > > > > because now under NMDA actions can be used only on >> > > > > > > > > > > > instances >> > > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > <operational> datastore. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > but the inline/embedded library would (only) be present in >> > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > operational datastore, so what's the issue? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Well, the issue is described in my initial mail of this >> > > > > > > > > > thread: >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > current >> > > > > > > > > > text >> > > > > > > > > > requires that every instance of an inline mount point >> > > > > > > > > > contains >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > embedded >> > > > > > > > > > YANG library. Tha latter is state data, so the above >> > > > > > > > > > requirement >> > > > > > > > > > cannot >> > > > > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > > > satisfied if the mount point instance is in a configuration >> > > > > > > > > > datastore. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > That's not how I read the intent of the current text. I don't >> > > > > > > > > see >> > > > > > > > > SM >> > > > > > > > > impacting which data stores information is presented. Just >> > > > > > > > > like >> > > > > > > > > use >> > > > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > scheme mount doesn't transform RO configuration information >> > > > > > > > > into >> > > > > > > > > operational information. I sent you a couple of sentences >> > > > > > > > > clarifying >> > > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > at one point, I'll dig up the proposed text and resend. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Please do, this has to be discussed in the WG mailing list. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Agreed - that's why I asked to start this thread! >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Here's the original proposal: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > How about at the end of the section [3.2] adding a new >> > > > > > > paragraph along the lines of: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It is important to note that both YANG Library and Schema >> > > > > > > Mount Modules contain only operational state data. As such, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > s/contain/define/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > the information in these modules should be retrieved by >> > > > > > > clients from operational data stores using the appropriate >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is based on two assumptions: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. For every configuration datastore there is a corresponding >> > > > > > operational >> > > > > > datastore. >> > > > > >> > > > > well the text is revised below. In any case, "these modules" refers >> > > > > to >> > > > > yang library, and yes, I'm assuming YL is always and only in >> > > > > operational. If the revised text below isn't clear s/these/YANG >> > > > > Library/ >> > > > > - >> > > > >> > > > The thing is that we have the top-level YANG library in <operational>, >> > > > and >> > > > then >> > > > embedded YANG libraries scattered inside inline mount point instances. >> > > > >> > > > > > 2. For every mount point instance in any configuration datastore >> > > > > > there >> > > > > > is a >> > > > > > corresponding mount point instance (with the same path) in an >> > > > > > operational >> > > > > > datastore. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think that neither of these has to be true in general. >> > > > > >> > > > > agreed in general, but for inline, where YL is required, it must be >> > > > > true. >> > > > >> > > > How do you know? I provided an example in Singapore where a mount point >> > > > instance >> > > > in <intended> is a part of pre-provisioned data (for non-existent >> > > > hardware). >> > > > Then, according to the NMDA rules there is no corresponding instance in >> > > > <operational>, hence no place where the embedded YANG library can be >> > > > placed. >> > > > (I can easily provide a concrete example if needed). >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Dean replied that this cannot happen, so it seems there are some >> > > > assumptions >> > > > how >> > > > the inline method of schema mount may be applied. If so, these >> > > > assumptions >> > > > have >> > > > to be explicitly stated. >> > > > >> > > > > > > protocol operations. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In contrast, the substance of my proposal with metadata annotations >> > > > > > is >> > > > > > to be >> > > > > > able to retrieve all schemas from a well-known location in *the* >> > > > > > <operational> >> > > > > > datastore, namely from the top-level YANG library. >> > > > > >> > > > > What about a schema that is based on dll that contains modules that >> > > > > isn't loaded until a mount point is instantiated -- this is certainly >> > > > > a >> > > > > valid approach for supporting LNEs, but would be precluded in this >> > > > > approach. I really don't think a top level approach works for all >> > > > > inline (managed) types of mounts. >> > > > >> > > > It isn't precluded: when the mount point is instantiated (no matter >> > > > which >> > > > datastore it is in), the server adds the schema as a new entry to the >> > > > "schema" >> > > > list in the top level YANG library (with a unique key), and annotates >> > > > the >> > > > mount >> > > > point instance with a leafref pointing to that key. So different >> > > > instances >> > > > of >> > > > the same mount point can have different schemas. >> > > > >> > > > > > > Given this discussion, we can generalize it further to: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The use of mount points does not impact the nature of the >> > > > > > > mounted data or in which data store information is made >> > > > > > > available. For example, mounted YANG Library modules contain >> > > > > > > only operational state data and, as such, the information in >> > > > > > > these modules is available from operational data stores using >> > > > > > > the appropriate protocol operations. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The whole question here is whether and how we can locate the schema >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > an >> > > > > > inline mount point in any configuration datastore. >> > > > > >> > > > > Why is a mounted YL different than a top level YL? What works for and >> > > > >> > > > It is not different, but it can be only in an operational datastores, >> > > > and so >> > > > for >> > > > mount point instances inside configuration datastores we need a way how >> > > > to >> > > > locate the schema for that mount point, because it cannot be found >> > > > directly >> > > > under the mount point instance (as the current text assumes). >> > > > >> > > > > is sufficient for the normal case of YL shouldn't be impacted or >> > > > > modified by SM -- at least that's how I thought we've been talking >> > > > > about >> > > > > since SM was started. Again, we never made any special provisions for >> > > > > any other rw/ro/state data, assuming top level YL is not handled as >> > > > > metadata, why start now? >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm getting the impression that your argument may be more about if YL >> > > > > should be treated as something other than operational data, is this >> > > > > wrong? >> > > > >> > > > This is wrong. My argument is that there should be only one top-level >> > > > YANG >> > > > library (state data) and each inline mount point instance just points to >> > > > a >> > > > schema inside it by means of a metadata annotation attached to the mount >> > > > point >> > > > (in any datastore). >> > > > >> > > > Lada >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Lou >> > > > > >> > > > > > Lada >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Lou >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Lada >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Lou >> > > > > > > > > > > > However, a good alternative seems to be a metadata >> > > > > > > > > > > > annotation >> > > > > > > > > > > > along >> > > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > lines of RFC 7952, for example with the alternative B of >> > > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > newly >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposed YANG library schema: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > md:annotation schema-ref { >> > > > > > > > > > > > type leafref { >> > > > > > > > > > > > path "/yanglib:yang- >> > > > > > > > > > > > library/yanglib:schema/yanglib:name"; >> > > > > > > > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, all inline mounted schemas would be >> > > > > > > > > > > > included >> > > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > top-level YANG library, and mount point instances in all >> > > > > > > > > > > > datastores >> > > > > > > > > > > > would be annotated with leafref pointing to the actual >> > > > > > > > > > > > schema. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Unlike regular state data, it is IMO no problem to >> > > > > > > > > > > > permit >> > > > > > > > > > > > such >> > > > > > > > > > > > annotations in configuration datastores. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Opinions? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this will work for all architectures of LNEs >> > > > > > > > > > > as >> > > > > > > > > > > well >> > > > > > > > > > > as >> > > > > > > > > > > other possible future use cases. In short, this seems >> > > > > > > > > > > *very* >> > > > > > > > > > > restrictive. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't understand, IMO it is not restrictive at all. What >> > > > > > > > > > kind >> > > > > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions >> > > > > > > > > > do you see? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Lada >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Lou >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Lada >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> writes: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the following text in sec. 3.2 of schema-mount-08 is >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong >> > > > > > > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > > > > traditional >> > > > > > > > > > > > > datastores, and even more so for NDMA: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In case 1 ["inline"], the mounted schema is >> > > > > > > > > > > > > determined >> > > > > > > > > > > > > at >> > > > > > > > > > > > > run >> > > > > > > > > > > > > time: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > every >> > > > > > > > > > > > > instance of the mount point that exists in the >> > > > > > > > > > > > > parent >> > > > > > > > > > > > > tree >> > > > > > > > > > > > > MUST >> > > > > > > > > > > > > contain a copy of YANG library data [RFC7895] that >> > > > > > > > > > > > > defines >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > > mounted schema exactly as for a top-level data >> > > > > > > > > > > > > model. A >> > > > > > > > > > > > > client >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > > > > expected to retrieve this data from the instance >> > > > > > > > > > > > > tree, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > possibly >> > > > > > > > > > > > > after >> > > > > > > > > > > > > creating the mount point. Instances of the same >> > > > > > > > > > > > > mount >> > > > > > > > > > > > > point >> > > > > > > > > > > > > MAY >> > > > > > > > > > > > > use >> > > > > > > > > > > > > different mounted schemas. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > An instance of the mount point in any *configuration* >> > > > > > > > > > > > > datastores >> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot >> > > > > > > > > > > > > contain >> > > > > > > > > > > > > YANG library (being state data), and so the MUST >> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot >> > > > > > > > > > > > > hold. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not clear to me how to repair this without >> > > > > > > > > > > > > considerable >> > > > > > > > > > > > > complications >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and/or a lot of handwaving. There is actually one good >> > > > > > > > > > > > > solution >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but it >> > > > > > > > > > > > > has >> > > > > > > > > > > > > impact on YANG library: the server could provide it in >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reply >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > > > > > operation, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > say "get-yang-library" rather than as state data. Then >> > > > > > > > > > > > > everything >> > > > > > > > > > > > > would be >> > > > > > > > > > > > > fine >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - this operation would turn into an action for the >> > > > > > > > > > > > > mount >> > > > > > > > > > > > > point, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and it >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can >> > > > > > > > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > > > > > > used equally well for config true and false mount >> > > > > > > > > > > > > points. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So my proposal is to move from YANG library as state >> > > > > > > > > > > > > data >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > > > > > operation. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > It >> > > > > > > > > > > > > could be done along with changing the YANG library >> > > > > > > > > > > > > structure, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > so >> > > > > > > > > > > > > there >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will be >> > > > > > > > > > > > > little extra impact on implementations. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lada >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs >> > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > > > > > > > > netmod mailing list >> > > > > > > > > > > > > netmod@ietf.org >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > > > > > > netmod mailing list >> > > > > > > > > > > netmod@ietf.org >> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka >> > > > > > > > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs >> > > > > > > > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Ladislav Lhotka >> > Head, CZ.NIC Labs >> > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >> > >> >> > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >
- [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library joel jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library joel jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Dean Bogdanovic
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library Martin Bjorklund