Re: [netmod] update on "rdns" URN for enterprise YANG models

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:23:51PM +, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen wrote: > > I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some of > > the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite answer the

Re: [netmod] update on "rdns" URN for enterprise YANG models

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:23:51PM +, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen wrote: > I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some of > the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite answer the > questions. I'd like to point out that the request for "rdns" URN is

Re: [netmod] update on "rdns" URN for enterprise YANG models

I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some of the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite answer the questions. I'd like to point out that the request for "rdns" URN is not to prevent the use of URLs. The request for "rdns" URN is to allow an

[netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt - Do we want to mention RESTCONF in the abstract? From the new charter: The NETMOD

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1 ABNF for deviate-stmt

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> The ABNF for "default" is wrong in the deviate-*-stmt (add, replace, > delete) > >>

Re: [netmod] Question about updating YANG modules

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:20:36AM +, William Ivory wrote: > So would it be a fair summary to say that it is allowed to change from a > specific type to a union consisting only of those types, but that adding > different types on top of the existing type is not recommended. > > Which JSON

Re: [netmod] Question about updating YANG modules

So would it be a fair summary to say that it is allowed to change from a specific type to a union consisting only of those types, but that adding different types on top of the existing type is not recommended. Which JSON document are you referring to? Thanks, William -Original

Re: [netmod] Question about updating YANG modules

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:02:24AM +, William Ivory wrote: > OK - but changing from int8 to int16 still allows all previously > allowed values, and simply adds some more, making it less > restrictive. That isn't allowed though as noted in the bullet point > from section 10 below. Obviously,

Re: [netmod] Question about updating YANG modules

OK - but changing from int8 to int16 still allows all previously allowed values, and simply adds some more, making it less restrictive. That isn't allowed though as noted in the bullet point from section 10 below. What about extending a union that previously included say just strings to

[netmod] Question about updating YANG modules

Hi, Section 10 of the YANG RFC covers updating modules while maintaining backwards-compatibiility. I have a question about whether the following statement allows for a string type to be replaced with a union comprising solely of string types, so long as the overall set of strings accepted was