Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ONE WITH THE CORRECT MAIL ALIASES)

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

> On 23 Feb 2015, at 20:31, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Thomas Morin <[e-mail]> writes:
>>> Additionally, Lada, you say that based on my comments "in rev. -03 the 
>>> list of RIBs (then called "routing-table") was the moved out of the 
>>> routing instance (then called "router") and became global.". But if I 
>>> look at -03, "routing-table" is still a child of "router".  The change 
>>> to make "routing-table" global was made in -05.
>>> 
>>> I guess you need to find out what was the motivation for the change in 
>>> -05, a few months after my initial comments were address.
>> 
>> Yes, you are right, it seems the immediate motivation for this change
>> was this review by Martin Bjorklund:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg06962.html
> 
> I don't really understand what exactly in this review led to that
> change?

Last bullet about sec. 5.2:

o  5.2

               list recipient-routing-table {
                 ...
                 leaf name {
                   type leafref {
                     path "/routing/router/routing-tables/"
                        + "routing-table/name";
                   }

  This should also be a relative path.

A relative path would make sense only if the leafref points within the same router (later renamed to routing-instance). Consequently, it would be impossible to pass routes between tables in different routers.

On the other hand, the global path as shown above could lead to ambiguous references, because different routers could have routing-tables with identical names.

I therefore decided to keep the global path but make sure the names of routing tables are globally unique. Having a single list of routing-tables was the most straightforward way to achieve this.

Lada

> 
> 
> /martin

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C