>> c) Maintaining a conceptual framework in which YANG models are used. >> This effort entails describing the context that network management >> protocols (e.g., NETCONF, RESTCONF, CoAP, etc.) operate in, and >> how certain YANG statements interact in that context. > > The point above sounds a bit vague and can be interpreted wrongly. > What exactly is meant by "the context that network management protocols > operate in"?
Let's continue this discussion on the other thread with Rob Wilton. > Actually since 2002, NETCONF WG is responsible to specify the configuration > protocols and the context and framework where they operate in. > I assume you rather mean bringing YANG and the protocols using it into > relation or showing how YANG is used together with a protocol, or? > To make it more clear please elaborate what exactly is in-scope and > what is out-of-scope. I think that the scope is covered in the other thread. > We were discussing to specify the YANG language as generic as possible > to be used by many protocols and with this to remove NETCONF specific > details. If this is still the aim, we should add a statement on this. Correct, we’re trying to decouple NETMOD from this, which entails, in part, factoring-out some protocol specifics while factoring-in the context that YANG expects to be used in. Kent _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
