[netmod] New Version Notification for draft-clacla-netmod-model-catalog-02.txt

Dear all, What's new in this draft? o Add a belongs-to leaf to track parent modules. o Add leafs to track dependents and dependencies for a given module. o Simplify the generated-from enumerated values. o Refine the type for compilation-result to be an inet:uri. o Add

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

The Last Call for this document has completed with *no* responses, other than Benoit's question regarding if it should be a BCP, which also had no responses, other than my own wondering if YANG (and hence the guidelines) was stable enough. Lou and I discussed. It is our opinion that, given

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-05: port-number

Rodney Cummings wrote: > Hi folks, > > One of the last topics that we need to resolve for WG Last Call of > draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-05 is the representation of port-number, > which serves as the key to the list of 1588 port data sets > (i.e. port-list). I've had

[netmod] draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-05: port-number

Hi folks, One of the last topics that we need to resolve for WG Last Call of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-05 is the representation of port-number, which serves as the key to the list of 1588 port data sets (i.e. port-list). I've had some offline discussion with IEEE 1588 WG members, and I'm

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

JOEY BOYD wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone have thoughts on this? > > Regards, > Joey > > -Original Message- > From: JOEY BOYD > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:06 AM > To: 'netmod@ietf.org' > Subject: Backward Compatibility Question > > Hi all, > >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Hi Randy, On 02/10/2017 17:37, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - On 10/2/2017 7:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: This discussion may be conflating two issues: (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative? RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative without using RFC

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

Hi, It would change the schema node for an object if it was wrapped it in a choice. This affects augment and deviation statements that reference the old schema node. The 'uses' node is a special case since it never appears in a schema node identifier. Andy On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Kent

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model

Hi there, I'm currently working on another draft ietf specification (draft-ietf-dots-data-channel) which has a ordering requirement, but the 'ordered-by' statement is not specified (missing?) for the 'list acl' in container 'access-lists' in 4.1 IETF Access Control List

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Hi - On 10/2/2017 7:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: This discussion may be conflating two issues: (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative? RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative without using RFC 2119 terms. Thus it's clear that their usage is not

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

Hi Joey, Your proposal looks fine to me, since it doesn't change the semantics of the data model. Note that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-11 says: o Any set of data definition nodes may be replaced with another set of syntactically and semantically equivalent nodes.

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:15 AM, JOEY BOYD wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone have thoughts on this? > The choice and case nodes are schema nodes so they are never an issue for data tree XPath such as must/when. The change works in your example because a leaf cannot be

[netmod] import by revision and updated modules

Ideally, I think that it would be good if the ietf-routing module could be upgraded in place without a namespace change. However, one problem with this approach is that it looks like YANG's "import by revision" doesn't help in the way that one might hope: If ietf-routing is published with

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

This discussion may be conflating two issues: (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative? RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative without using RFC 2119 terms. (ii) Should standards track documents use RFC 2119 terms? If 93% of recently published

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

Hello, Does anyone have thoughts on this? Regards, Joey -Original Message- From: JOEY BOYD Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:06 AM To: 'netmod@ietf.org' Subject: Backward Compatibility Question Hi all, Suppose I had a published YANG model with the following leaf. leaf thing1

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Juerge, Understood.  I think you made this clear in our previous discussion on this topic, even though ~93% of the RFCs published in the last 5 years use it.   We certainly can discuss this with our AD, and if there's sufficient interest in the WG even discuss it in Singapore. If others are

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Lou, the conclusion is that we add RFC 2119 here and there but I disagree with the notion that normative text needs RFC 2119 language, i.e., that text that does not use RFC 2119 language is not normative. See the pointers to the RFCs that I have provided. Now you want to make this even a rule for

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Benoit, I think this and related topic was closed with the conclusion of sticking with 2119 language for normative text in current and future WG docs. We certainly can add this sentence as well. Lou On October 2, 2017 5:11:20 AM Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, To

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Dear all, To avoid any confusion, just clearly mention it.     "This appendix is normative | informative" No need to debate for hours on this. Regards, Benoit - Original Message - From: "Lou Berger" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM,

Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

Hi Andy, On 29/09/2017 17:46, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi, Regarding the issue "Is it allowed to violate uniqueness of key values?",