Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09

Hi all, 

I also have a question/comment regarding this draft, maybe if it's discussed already. 

If there a model A, which I would like to use just part of model A in another model B, what should I do?
The draft states that "This document allows mounting of complete data models only.  Other specifications may extend this model by defining additional mechanisms such as mounting sub-hierarchies of a module."
It seems that the current schema mount doesn't support such usage. 

Then I'm thinking that using deviation to create a new sub-module A', then mount the sub-module A' in model B. 
Will it be a possible way out?

BR,
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of otilibil@eurecom.fr
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:18 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09

Hi members,

I comment on that draft:

* Instead of "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set of modules) is added to the data model starting at a non-root location", this would read better: "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set of modules) be added to the data model at locations other than the root." (Section 1)

* 'The "mount-point" statement MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module' Why this documents keeps YANG 1 off from its scope? (Section
3.1)

* 'Specifically, a server that doesn?t support the NMDA, MAY implement revision 2016-06-21 of "ietf-yang-library" [RFC7950] under a mount point' [RFC7895] defines "ietf-yang-library", not [RFC7950] (Section 6)

* Why not "Tree Diagram" instead of "Data Model"? The wording has become a Best Practice (Section 8)

* Idem, "This document...has the following diagram" captures better the Best Practice than "This document...has the following structure"  
(Section 8)

* Same remark on restricting to YANG 1.1: "The ?mount-point? statement MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module, neither explicitly nor via a ?uses? statement (description of the extension "mount-point")

* Should this sentence refers only to [RFC6020]? "This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]"  
(Section 10)

* The document cites /schema-mounts as "The schema defined by this state data provides detailed information about a server implementation may help an attacker identify the server capabilities and server implementations with known bugs" I think this section should warn also
on:
    ** Section 2.1.2 and 4 of [RFC7895] (the list 'module' contains the leaf 'schema': from which anyone may retrieve a YANG module)
    ** Section 3 of [RFC6022] (it defines the RPC 'get-schema'; with which anyone may get a YANG module)
    ** and Section 5 of [RFC8341] (reminding administrators to set user rights accordingly, and giving their defaults values).

Regards,
Ariel

[RFC6020] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020
[RFC7895] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895
[RFC7950] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950
[RFC8341] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8341

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod