On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.net
wrote:
And it is not just end users who need help to better understand YANG
models and how to use them. For those still on the edge, looking to finally
take the plunge and use NETCONF/YANG to configure their devices,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:17, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
I am strongly against changing the contract on extensions.
They MAY be ignored by any YANG tool. Period.
That means they are far from
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 10 Aug 2015, at 17:32, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:17, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 10 Aug 2015, at 18:46, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 10 Aug 2015, at 17:32, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
From: Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 4:15 PM
To: Acee Lindem a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com
Cc: Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)
eina...@cisco.commailto:eina...@cisco.com, Jonathan Hansford
I think there is agreement that there is a problem. The YANG Routing Design
Team is addressing this with
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00.txt (which has
evolved from
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt). In
essence, a place for
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
I think there is agreement that there is a problem. The YANG Routing
Design Team is addressing this with
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00.txt (which
has evolved from
And it is not just end users who need help to better understand YANG
models and how to use them. For those still on the edge, looking to
finally take the plunge and use NETCONF/YANG to configure their
devices, help is also required to determine how best to structure
their YANG models, make use of
Hi,
recent discussions show that 6020(bis) text about extensions isn't
sufficiently clear about the scope and semantics of extensions. IMO this
needs to be fixed and so I propose to add the following item to YANG 1.1
issue list. Comments and additional solutions are welcome.
Lada
As someone sharing responsibilities for guiding a number of development teams
both defining new models and implementing to some already defined models in
this area, I can only agree with this addition to what I said earlier.
Cheers,
Einar
On Aug 10, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Jonathan Hansford
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
Lets please not mix YANG 1.1 work with other discussions at this point
in time.
I would really like the WG and IESG to decide how YANG is going to be
Hi,
I am strongly against changing the contract on extensions.
They MAY be ignored by any YANG tool. Period.
That means they are far from mandatory.
They are little more than a keyword and a description clause.
There are not even any rules or help determining
which extensions can appear as
12 matches
Mail list logo
