Re: [netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 A0D34129516 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 04:27:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PiHsGuhxa3Tv for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 04:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55581241FC for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 04:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.45]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 938ED1AE03F5; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:27:16 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:27:16 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20180207.132716.1275264246183208833.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lhotka@nic.cz
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <1518005906.22328.69.camel@nic.cz>
References: <1517999361.22328.33.camel@nic.cz> <93a100e4-146a-122d-0848-9a7a43e0c1f2@cisco.com> <1518005906.22328.69.camel@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ujWj8tJa7GpS1MpjZpN5vpl3wlo>
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch
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: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:27:21 -0000

Hi,

It seems we're now just reiterating what has previously been discussed
*a lot*.  IMO, highest prio is to resolve any issues related to YLbis.
If we also need other clarifications to make the document easier to
understand, that's fine.  But I don't think we should fundamentally
change the solution that the WG agreed upon.


/martin



Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 11:41 +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > 
> > On 07/02/2018 10:29, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 11:14 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:25:52PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > > > > I think that the term "external" could also be confusing, since I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > sort of implies peer mount like semantics.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The "inline" mount concept seems to subsume peer mounts. From the
> > > > > model perspective, is there a difference whether the mounted data is
> > > > > local or remote (and what does local/remove mean for a VM)?
> > > > >   
> > > > > > I would suggest the term "dynamic" instead of "inline " but that could
> > > > > > easily be confused with dynamic datastores.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, I think this is not a good word either.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Perhaps rather than "inline" another choice could be "discoverable",
> > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > the schema is not known, and is dynamically discoverable inline at the
> > > > > > mount
> > > > > > point.
> > > > > > Equally, rather than "use-schema", perhaps a better choice would be
> > > > > > "known",
> > > > > > i.e. the schema is already known, and made available as part of YANG
> > > > > > library.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps integrated schema vs. mounted schema.
> > > > 
> > > > I like the term "integrated" better than "use-schema".  But both cases
> > > > are mounted, so we need another term than "mounted" for "inline".
> > > > "segregated" doesn't sound quite right ;-)
> > > 
> > > I would prefer to use the term "mount" only for the inline case and find
> > > something else for the use-schema case. The term "mount" evokes that some
> > > *instance* data being added, which is what happens in the "inline" case but
> > > not
> > > for "use-schema".
> > 
> > Perhaps the "use-schema" case really is a type of "schema mount", where 
> > as the "inline" case is a type of "mount".
> 
> This may be quite confusing. My suggestion for "use-schema" is "external
> augment" - the mount point as a *schema node* plays a very similar role to the
> target node of an augment.
> 
> > 
> > Perhaps they could/should have entirely separate YANG models to describe 
> > them.  Possibly in the "use-schema" case could refer to grafting a 
> > schema into a parent schema rather than mounting it.
> 
> I proposed this previously. The inline case could in fact be considerably
> simplified because the extension statement is all that's needed - no state data.
> In other words, the "mount-point" extension would immediately indicate the
> inline mount.  
> 
> In order to distinguish the use-schema case (or whatever we call it) we have
> then two options:
> 
> 1. use a different YANG extension for labelling mount points of this type
> 
> 2. use schema node identifiers as in augments (i.e. no extension at all).
> 
> Thanks, Lada
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Lada
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > /martin
> > > > 
> > > > > > Whether it would be right to change these at this time, I've no idea
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yep.
> > > > > 
> > > > > /js
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > > > > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>