Dear Lou Berger,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
netmod Session 1 (1:30:00)
Wednesday, Afternoon Session II 1520-1650
Room Name: Sophia size: 200
I am not aware of any IPRs related to the draft.
Thanks.
> On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14.
>
> The working group last call ends on November 3.
> Please
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.
The working group last call ends on November 3.
Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
and believe it is ready for publication", are
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14.
The working group last call ends on November 3.
Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
and believe it is ready for publication", are
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
> Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.
>
>
> On 20/10/2017 16:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Robert Wilton writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> XPATH 1.0 defines the following
Hi Lada,
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.
On 20/10/2017 16:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Rob,
Robert Wilton writes:
Hi,
XPATH 1.0 defines the following three node-type tests:
1) comment()
2) processing-instruction()
3) text()
For completeness, node() is
Hi Rob,
Robert Wilton writes:
> Hi,
>
> XPATH 1.0 defines the following three node-type tests:
>
> 1) comment()
> 2) processing-instruction()
> 3) text()
For completeness, node() is the fourth one.
>
> My assumption is that a YANG tree doesn't contain any nodes of type
>
Rob/Authors/All,
Thank you for putting in the effort to update the draft based on LC
comments received. Please let the WG know when you think all open
issues are addressed and we will do a 1 or 2 week 2nd LC depending on
timing relative to IETF100
WG,
Please don't wait for the 2nd LC -- review
Regarding validation, section 3.10 refers to pyang tool. Since the set of tools
might change in the future, shouldn't the reference be to the yangvalidator url
or something along those lines (instead of an exhaustive list which may change)?
I think there is a nit in section 2.4, the '.' after
Hi,
XPATH 1.0 defines the following three node-type tests:
1) comment()
2) processing-instruction()
3) text()
My assumption is that a YANG tree doesn't contain any nodes of type
'comment' or 'processing-instruction' and hence these filters would
never match any nodes.
However, it wasn't
Hi,
I've asked about evaluating must statements on unconfigured non-presence
containers here before, but realise I never got a definitive answer on whether
the clarification in the YANG 1.1 issues list actually applies to YANG 1.0, or
only YANG 1.1:
YANG 1.0 XPATH context:
Hi,
I've just posted an updated version of the NMDA datastores draft
(draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-05.txt). The authors believe that
this should address all of the issues raised during the WG LC. The
issues themselves have been tracked at
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
Title : Network Management Datastore Architecture
Authors : Martin Bjorklund
Juergen
13 matches
Mail list logo