Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

> Tom,
>
> On 8/26/2015 9:34 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
> > ...
> >       This is exactly what I want to get on the table.
>
> So taking a step back, perhaps there is a YANG language question at the
> heart of this discussion.  I think we're seeing cases where the same
> data model is useful in multiple cases/places.  The example I like to
> use (although I know others disagree with the example) is the case of
> PE/CE config information, where some of the exact same information may
> end up on the CE and PE devices as well as the L3 service model.  In
> this case we'd like a core model to be "included" (or "linked") into two
> larger models.  Importantly, I'm referring to doing this as part of
> model definition - not at server/device run time.  This is important for
> the pre-provisioning case.
>
> It is my understanding that there is no way to really do this in a
> general and extensible way (including allowing for augmentations)
> today.  If there was such support, I do think we'd be saying that we'd
> like the existing models to support this mechanism rather than our
> current proposal of being relocated .
>
>
If you are talking about schema reuse, then YANG has groupings as the
solution.
But it seems you are talking about YANG Mount -- the ability to have a
subtree on server X represent a different subtree on server Y.  On the
controller
the 'mount point' is not the actual data root (as Martin has explained).
On the NE, the data models are in their real location  On the controller
they are not.

This can be done with an 'anyxml' hack today.
It would be better to have real YANG support for this very basic
use-case for YANG Mount.

> Lou
> (BTW this is my opinion, not speaking for the DT.)
>
>

Andy

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