Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Feedback on options for issue #1 in TE tunnel YANG

Hi Benoit/Yang Drs,

Thanks, and sorry for delayed response. We discussed this amongst the authors. From Lada’s response, we are interested in functionality extension he mentioned below. I am not sure if the authors of “draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount” have this planned in their next version update or not. However, if not, we will consider the way to proceed from our side with the remaining other options.

    > As for option #2, the design of schema mount could perhaps include some
    > means for refering to data nodes and/or definitions in the parent
    > schema. This would however make the subschema usable only in a specific
    > context.

Regards,
Tarek

On 2016-09-07, 6:32 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

    Tarek,

    Do you have the answers you need?

    Regards, B.
    > Hi Tarek,
    >
    > your analysis of available solutions seems correct and exhaustive. Maybe
    > I don't fully understand option #3 but I think you could achieve a
    > reasonable level of "object-orientedness" and separation of
    > technology-specific data by defining appropriate hierarchy of identities
    > (possibly with multiple inheritance, which is now possible in YANG 1.1),
    > and then using conditional augments.
    >
    > As for option #2, the design of schema mount could perhaps include some
    > means for refering to data nodes and/or definitions in the parent
    > schema. This would however make the subschema usable only in a specific
    > context.
    >
    > Lada
    >
    > "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com> writes:
    >
    >> Hi YANG doctors,
    >>
    >> We have a requirement to reuse generic data across multiple technology model instantiations for model we’re driving in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. For this, we've identified a number of proposals and tried to summarize them in slides 7-10 in the deck @ http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-teas-3.pptx
    >>
    >> We are seeking your expert advice on the best way of the options to proceed with and whether there’s a precedence in other IETF models that have solved similar issues.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Tarek (and co-authors)
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> yang-doctors mailing list
    >> yang-doctors@ietf.org
    >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors