Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am preparing a new version of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis in order > > to address Y45-04. Note that YANG 1.1 uses the module > > ietf-yang-library from draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library (hence the > > crossposting). > > > > [BTW, shouldn't ietf-yang-library be moved to NETMOD?] > > > > We have a whole bunch of documents that have a normative reference to > > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis, which has a normative reference to > > draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library. This means we need to finish this > > document pretty soon. > > > > I ran into some issues with ietf-yang-library: > > > > 1. The leaf "conformance" is of type "boolean". It is not obvious > > what "conformance = false" means. Should we change the name > > and/or type of this leaf? > > > > I don't have a good proposal, but what we need is a way to > > indicate "I implement the protocol accessible nodes in this > > module" vs. "I just list this module b/c some other module that > > I implement uses typdefs/groupings/... from it". > > > > This issue is related to the github issue #3. I think we need > > this information; Y45-04 relies on it. > > > > > > We went through this before and you didn't have a better suggestion last > time either. > > conformance=false means the server is not claiming conformance for this > module.
Yes I know. I just wish we had a better name for this. But you're right, if we can't come up with a better term, we'll stick to what we have. > A NETCONF <hello> should not have any modules tagged > as conformance=false. > > CoMI relies on this module as well. > It has been ready for WGLC since January. > > > > > > > > 2. The "/modules/module" list is keyed by "name" and "revision". > > Should we really have "revision" as key? A server can only > > implement one revision of a module, and should only list one > > revision of a module w/ conformance = false. I suggest we make > > this leaf mandatory, and not part of the key. > > > > > I am not in favor of this change. > Two modules "foo" and "bar" released on the same date > could not be represented. The name of the module would be the (single) key, so this should be possible. > I think the indexing is fine in the current draft. > The <get-schema> operation in NETCONF and RESTCONF need > the module name and the revision-date. Yes, revision must be mandatory. > This module should not care how many revisions of each module > are listed. This is the full YANG library, not a <hello> message. The whole point of this module is to replace the <hello> message! It first came up in RESTCONF, and we want to use it also in NETCONF in order to have one single way to do YANG module advertisement regardless of protocol. There is already the schema list in ietf-netconf-monitoring that gives you the full set of modules and submodules used in a server. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
