Re: [netmod] hi Alex, Eric and design team guys some comments for YANG-push and subscribed-notifications, please help to confirm

Hi Walker, Thanks very much for the comments. Some thoughts in-line. From: Zhengguangying (Walker), May 2, 2017 9:25 AM Hi Alex, Eric and all, I reviewed the latest Draft and have some comments, please help to confirm, thanks. For draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-06: 1. In section

[netmod] hi Alex, Eric and design team guys some comments for YANG-push and subscribed-notifications, please help to confirm

Hi Alex, Eric and all, I reviewed the latest Draft and have some comments, please help to confirm, thanks. For draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-06: 1. In section 4.1, the configured subscription receivers not sepcify which mechnism to connect to client, it's better define clearly,

Re: [netmod] hi Alex, Eric and design team guys some comments for YANG-push and subscribed-notifications, please help to confirm

Hi Walker, thank you for your review and comments, and Eric, for your excellent response, to which I have little to add except a few small items inline --- Alex From: Eric Voit (evoit) [mailto:ev...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:52 AM To: Zhengguangying (Walker)

Re: [netmod] hi Alex, Eric and design team guys some comments for YANG-push and subscribed-notifications, please help to confirm

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > Hi Walker, > > > > Thanks very much for the comments. Some thoughts in-line. > > > > *From:* Zhengguangying (Walker), May 2, 2017 9:25 AM > > Hi Alex, Eric and all, > > > >I reviewed the latest Draft and have some

[netmod] schema-mount virtual interim

Dear WG, Please note that the NETMOD WG will be holding a virtual interim meeting to discuss open issues and usage scenarios for draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount on May 22nd from 1pm to 3pm EST. Please see attached Calendar invite for WebEx details. Thanks, Kent (and Lou)

[netmod] ro presence containers

Hi all, Is a ro presence container (config false) a valid concept ? I couldn't find anything in RFC7950 that says it isn't valid. Presumably the 'presence' would reflect some internal state of the device (vs some configuration), and could be used to suppress certain leafs from a response