Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running

Andy Bierman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Maybe it is too early for NMDA to be making lots of rules about how > > > > > YANG works with new (and unimplemented) datastores. > > > > > > > > Juniper has the equivalent of

Re: [netmod] WGLC for draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang

Hi, I've reviewed the draft and found the following issues. * YANG enumeration values are conventionally lowercase, but the delay-mechanism-enumeration and port-state-enumeration types in the draft have uppercase values. * Similarly, hyphens should be used rather than underscores (pre-master

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with Balazs that system-created nodes in running are quite > common and > > > the vendors doing it have no intention of changing it. > > > > Of course, what else were they going to do pre-NMDA…and

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

> I agree with Balazs that system-created nodes in running are quite common and > the vendors doing it have no intention of changing it. Of course, what else were they going to do pre-NMDA…and also before require-instance false? Green-field deployments wouldn't be encumbered with

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:06:28PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > > Actually, strictly speaking, any text in a Standards Track > RFC that doesn't include RFC2119 language is just informative. > I very doubt this is true. But then, I have seen so many different interpretations of RFC 2119 language

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

On 9/14/17 13:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to >> remember. >> The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little symbols >> to remember them all. > > I

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > > Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to > remember. > The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little symbols > to remember them all. I agree with Andy. I also did some experiments with

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 14/09/2017 16:35, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > See below! > On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi Balazs, > > Thanks for your review. Comments inline. > > Balazs Lengyel

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

On 14/09/2017 16:35, Balazs Lengyel wrote: See below! On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi Balazs, Thanks for your review. Comments inline. Balazs Lengyel wrote: Hello, Reading the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 some comments: General)

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote: > Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative. The > default is that they are not so say that they are and they are. This is > well established practice. Hi Tom,     My memory (I haven't checked recently) is there is nothing in or defined

Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

Hi Balazs, Thanks for the review and comments. On 14/09/2017 16:44, Balazs Lengyel wrote: See below ! On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: CH 4.4.)  "Validation is performed on the contents of ." This to me means that default data is not considered at validation Note that RFC

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 duplicaiton

Lou I am proposing that the text I included would go more or less as is into the beginning of section 3. I think that it makes sense even before we get into the historic definitions of configuration etc. I want to spell out the problem - two different values of the one conceptual object,

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

On 9/14/17 12:13, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Did you consider to have a concise and a verbose tree output selected by > an option? I did. I wanted to get some broader feedback, but I figured people would want something like --tree-print-expanded-types or the like. Joe > > regards Balazs > > >

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference. My comment assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course should use whatever is correct. I also don't know much about that standards body. K. - Original Message - From: "Kent Watsen" Sent:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Phil Shafer writes: > + > +The implication of the existence of templating mechanisms is that > + is now explicitly allowed to be invalid, since the > +templating mechanism may be supplying additional data that satisfies > +constraints that may be satisfied by itself. > +

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

- Original Message - From: "Kent Watsen" Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM > Hi Tom, > > Thanks. The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf > to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1 > to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

Did you consider to have a concise and a verbose tree output selected by an option? regards Balazs On 2017-09-14 17:58, Joe Clarke wrote: On 9/14/17 11:43, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to remember. The current format gets very

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

On 9/14/17 11:43, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > > Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to > remember. > The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little symbols > to remember them all. I just went with text for these changes. Yes, it adds more

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

Hi, Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to remember. The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little symbols to remember them all. Andy On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Joe Clarke wrote: > I've been hacking on pyang, and

Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

See below ! On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: CH 4.4.) "Validation is performed on the contents of ." This to me means that default data is not considered at validation Note that RFC 7950, section 6.4.1, says: In the accessible tree, all leafs and leaf-lists with default

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Rob, On 9/14/17, 9:37 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: >Hi Kent & Lou, > >When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process >on these drafts? > >I think that

[netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

See below! On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi Balazs, Thanks for your review. Comments inline. Balazs Lengyel wrote: Hello, Reading the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 some comments:

[netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

I've been hacking on pyang, and I changed tree.py to add the enum values for enumeration types and identiyref bases for identityref types. Here is an example: module: yang-catalog +--rw catalog +--rw modules | +--rw module* [name revision organization] | +--rw name

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

> So rfc8022bis-02 publishes the v2 module, and the the deprecated version > of the v1 module as an appendix? Lou and I were just discussing if appendix can be normative or not. I always thought no, but I haven't checked. This is a grey area, in that understanding that the old module is

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 14/09/2017 15:52, Kent Watsen wrote: rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy module, but does it actually say it? (I can't find it) The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to have a meaningful impact in the wild. I think

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy module, but does it actually say it? (I can't find it) The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to have a meaningful impact in the wild. I think Juergen said they had this issue with

Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

Hi Balazs, Thanks for your review. Comments inline. Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > Reading the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 some comments: > > General) The system often adds data to the or > datastore already not just to : e.g. > > UC1: I have a

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

Good suggestion, Rob. This might also have come up in the SecDir review. Separately, Juergen had a suggestion to add an "observation" (since a "warning" seems too strong) that use of POSIX regex precludes UTF8 support. Makes sense? FWIW, the module is fine as is, since the regex is under a

[netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

Hello, Reading the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 some comments: General) The system often adds data to the or datastore already not just to : e.g. UC1: I have a server configured in running. I need to bind it to an ip-address. The ip-address might be the local loopback address,

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Kent & Lou, When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process on these drafts? I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for adoption.  For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open question of what to do with the old state tree, but

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

Hi Kent, Clyde, Does the "pattern-match" leaf need to be explicitly pulled out in security considerations?  Allowing a client to provide an arbitrary regex could potentially cause a regex engine to overflow its stack and crash. An example of an regex overflow is described here: