Any are concrete actionable proposals? /js
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not > > be NETCONF-specific. Why does YANG define extensions > > to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text > > about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC. > > > > This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87): > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod > > (first item in Open mike section). > > Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that are > inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” sections. > > I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data > tree properties. Separate documents would then define different encodings, > and “profiles” for management protocols. > > It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though. > > Lada > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
