Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

2017-09-07 Thread Kent Watsen
>>Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's? >>I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on >>these nmda-update drafts. > > I would hope this is not a prerequisite? We are evaluating how bad this > will be. I’d ask how many implementations there are of

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to > add semantics to certain naming patterns, so authors have to be warned. > > But this is a really bad idea (and slippery slope). I agree. /js -- Juergen

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

2017-09-07 Thread Kent Watsen
Hi Acee, > Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes. Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's? I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on these nmda-update drafts. > However, what about secondary and tertiary

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to add semantics to certain naming patterns, so authors have to be warned. But this is a really bad idea (and slippery slope). First we tell everybody "these are just identifiers, pick any string you want", then we want to

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

2017-09-07 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes. However, what about secondary and tertiary implications of moving to NDMA? If we change a path from “interface-state-ref” to “interface-ref” to reference an interface, I’d hope no one would expect the old statement to be kept

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

2017-09-07 Thread Lou Berger
On 9/6/2017 2:05 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Kent Watsen wrote: >> ... >> 2) a new module name forces an update to other modules that >> importing it (e.g., to resolve XPaths), that otherwise may >> not need to be updated. > This is a major drawback! I think

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 11:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton wrote: > >> > >> On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> Robert Wilton wrote: > On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Robert Wilton
On 07/09/2017 11:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Robert Wilton
On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen > wrote: >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

2017-09-07 Thread Robert Wilton
On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen > wrote: >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates.