Subject: Re: [netmod] overlays

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:16:06 +0200

Hello,
Some mappings/implementations, like our LDAP, will anyway need unique names, in such cases we 
will have effectively one big naming scope.
Balazs

Andy Bierman wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Andy Bierman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> What about nested groupings and typedefs?
>>>
>>> There is no way to identify the name of a nested
>>> typedef or grouping with Xpath because they are not in the same
>>> naming scope.
>>
>> You are right.  Maybe they should be in the same naming scope.  Are
>> there any compelling reasons for having separate naming scopes?
>>
> 
> I keep bringing this up:
> 
> typedef foo ...
> 
> grouping foo ...
> 
> leaf foo ...
> 
> extension foo ...
> 
> It doesn't really matter what nest level the typedef or grouping
> is at -- /foo always refers to the accessible object (leaf foo).
> Phil claims that it would be too restrictive on the vendor.
> I keep claiming that it will useful to be able to have a
> unique identifier, even for non-data like typedefs and groupings.
> 
> It is OK with me to reproduce the hierarchy rather than
> use Xpath, and not change all the naming scope rules now.
> 
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
> 
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod