Hi,
Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did
you think forwarding and mtu should be removed? In fact, I think I
missed <enabled>, so here's my diff:
--- ex-get-data-reply.xml
+++ ex-get-data-reply.xml
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
<!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
<ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
+ <enabled>true</enabled>
<forwarding>false</forwarding>
<mtu>1500</mtu>
<address>
@@ -20,12 +21,13 @@
<prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
<origin>static</origin>
</address>
- <neighbor>
+ <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
<ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
<link-layer-address><!-- PPL
-->00:01:02:03:04:05</link-layer-address>
</neighbor>
</ipv4>
<ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
+ <enabled>true</enabled>
<forwarding>false</forwarding>
<mtu>1280</mtu>
<address>
/martin
Vladimir Vassilev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The previous post was intended for the rfc7223bis Last Call (wrong
> subject line).
>
> I just completed similar validation through a testcase for the
> examples in rfc7277bis ("Appendix A. Example: NETCONF <get-config>
> reply" and "Appendix B. Example: NETCONF <get-data> Reply")
>
> Here there are some inconsistencies between the <get-config> output
> and the expected <get-data> output. A missing origin bug is probably
> more significant then the rest. The following patch fixes the
> inconsistencies and the testcase passes:
>
> --- before.txt 2017-12-12 20:39:09.037576425 +0100
> +++ after.txt 2017-12-12 20:37:46.425656680 +0100
> @@ -7,14 +7,12 @@
> <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
> <!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
> <ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
> - <forwarding>false</forwarding>
> - <mtu>1500</mtu>
> <address>
> <ip>192.0.2.1</ip>
> <prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
> <origin>static</origin>
> </address>
> - <neighbor>
> + <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
> <ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
> <link-layer-address>
> 00:01:02:03:04:05
> @@ -22,7 +20,6 @@
> </neighbor>
> </ipv4>
> <ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
> - <forwarding>false</forwarding>
> <mtu>1280</mtu>
> <address>
> <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
>
>
> In contrast to rfc7223bis-00 I have not reviewed rfc7277bis-00 and
> this is only a report of a detected issue.
>
> Vladimir
>
> On 12/11/2017 05:35 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.
> >
> > The focus of my review this time was on validating the module and the
> > example modules and example data through running code. I implemented
> > NMDA for the open source tools we use and added a testcase that
> > reproduces the result specified in "Appendix E. Example: NETCONF
> > <get-data> Reply" after loading the configuration specified in
> > "Appendix D. Example: NETCONF <get-config> Reply" and providing the
> > config false; data and system originated configuration as needed. I
> > can confirm the implementation validated the example modules and the
> > example data producing identical output.
> >
> > IMO the examples are demonstrating well the concept of NMDA and its
> > application for the ietf-interfaces module.
> >
> > I had an issue with a bug in [email protected] I
> > had to fix in order to use the <get-data> RPC. The bug is already
> > reported on the mailing-list.
> >
> > diff ietf-patched/[email protected]
> > ietf-draft/[email protected]
> > 140c140
> > < when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "ds:operational")';
> > ---
> >> when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "or:operational")';
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/2017 08:29 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> >> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
> >>
> >> Please recall that this update's intention is to
> >> modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
> >> guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two
> >> drafts [2] should reveal just this.
> >>
> >> The working group last call ends on December 12.
> >> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> >>
> >> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
> >> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> >> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> >>
> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
> >> [2]
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.txt
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Netmod Chairs
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
