On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:45, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
Hi,
after listening to the presentation of
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering
whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful.
The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces
Hi,
after listening to the presentation of
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering
whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful.
The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but their tree in
fact is
+--rw device
+--rw info
|
Clyde,
Excellent, thanks!
On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) cwil...@cisco.com wrote:
Carl,
Thanks for your question in the Netmod meeting during the review of the
ietf-syslog model.
Regarding the model implementation: the model has been implemented in ODL and
Carl,
Thanks for your question in the Netmod meeting during the review of the
ietf-syslog model.
Regarding the model implementation: the model has been implemented in ODL and
internally in Cisco's NXOS.
Thanks,
Clyde
___
netmod mailing list
On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:00, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls?
(The original and a
Lada,
Y34 is closed and I have not seen any new argument here that indicates
we made a major mistake with the resolution of Y34. As such, Y34
remains closed.
If you want to discuss new ideas to relocate or symlink data models,
please do so in a separate thread. (And no, we do not accept new
