Re: [netmod] Query about Schema Mount "config" leaf

OK, got the reference.
I felt it would have been better to mention why this "config" leaf has been defined in this draft by citing a reference to other drafts as has been done for the rest of the leaves.
As a reader, I was left wondering as to why there should be a leaf that over-rides the actual "config" true definition of the mounted models. If indeed the goal is to allow only "read" access why not use the NACM way for it ?

With Regards,
Rohit

From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com]
Sent: 21 December 2018 17:41
To: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about Schema Mount "config" leaf

Hi Rohit,

Are you familiar with either of the LNE or NI model drafts?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/

I believe both of these drafts were driving some of the key schema mount requirements, and may provide useful examples of the use cases.
On 21/12/2018 12:01, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
Hi All,

        +--ro mount-point* [module label]
           +--ro module                 yang:yang-identifier
           +--ro label                  yang:yang-identifier
           +--ro config?                boolean

1.       When reading the schema mount draft it is not clear for which use-case, the "config" being false will be helpful for ?

Section 3 of the LNE draft writes about the use of this config leaf.

2.       If there are modules with config true nodes mounted, how can the data-nodes of those mounted modules be instantiated if the config leaf is false ?

There will likely be separate direct YANG management protocol access to the mounted data (e.g. for a mounted LNE) that would allow the configuration to be manipulated.

Thanks,
Rob

With Regards,
Rohit

_______________________________________________

netmod mailing list

netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod