Re: [netmod] ietf-access-control-l...@2017-10-03.yang : Can access-lists use a grouping?

Ranga, Is there a reason why you do not want to consider augmenting the model, particularly since you seem to want to use the entire model? > On Oct 31, 2017, at 8:39 PM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > > Re-posted from OPSAWG list : > > > Hello, > > In the file > >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Hi, I have read this draft a few times. I have not implemented the draft but it seems reasonably constrained. here are some comments. Sec 1: seems like a lot of background on YANG and then some explanation of the solution. The problem statement is never really explained. Some discussion of

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

Kristian, > On Nov 1, 2017, at 10:27 PM, Kristian Larsson wrote: > > I think there's a problem with the current approach for features > where it conflates the limitations of the device with the > limitations of an attachment point. Ultimately it is the > limitations of

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

Juergen, > On Nov 1, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > Mahesh, > > I think the question is why we need to have different match containers > for each possible feature set combination instead of having a single > match container with

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Kent, As other work I have authored depends on it, I have read the document and think it's ready for publication. Dean > 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-schema-mount-07.

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Does 'Yes/support' imply "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication"? /js On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:49:53PM -0400, Xufeng Liu wrote: > Yes/support. > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > > -Original Message- > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of

[netmod] draft agenda posted

The draft agenda for the NETMOD sessions has been posted: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/agenda-100-netmod/ There are no sessions listed for the three NMDA-update model drafts (rfc7223bis, rfc7277bis, rfc8022bis). They will be covered together by the chairs in the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Hi Xufeng, I support publication of this document. Thanks, Acee >>-Original Message- >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen >> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 5:38 PM >> To: netmod@ietf.org >> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Yes/support. Thanks, - Xufeng > -Original Message- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 5:38 PM > To: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07 > > All, > > This starts a

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:00:15PM +, Alexander Clemm wrote: > > > -Original Message- > ... > > > That is an interesting question. > > > > > > To describe this as a concrete example, if you have a single config > > > true YANG list for dynamic/configuration subscriptions then a > > >

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Thanks, Rob --- Alex From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:43 AM To: Alexander Clemm ; Martin Bjorklund ; a...@yumaworks.com; netmod@ietf.org; Randy Presuhn ; Phil

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

> -Original Message- ... > > That is an interesting question. > > > > To describe this as a concrete example, if you have a single config > > true YANG list for dynamic/configuration subscriptions then a > > subscription can be created either via configuration or as an RPC operation. > >

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Hi, So a server will be required to guess the correct datastore until it finds the right one that matches the action instance? 10 candidate The server will guess the datastore in some

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

I think there's a problem with the current approach for features where it conflates the limitations of the device with the limitations of an attachment point. Ultimately it is the limitations of the attachment point that matter. Creating an ACL in config on a device doesn't actually mean anything

Re: [netmod] YANG model for netowrk configuration of a device's management interface

On 11/01/2017 10:03 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Jan Kundrát wrote: Hi, I'm working on adding NETCONF support for configuring network on a few management interfaces of our product, a random network appliance. I would prefer not to reinvent this particular wheel, so

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

Mahesh, On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:13:18PM +0630, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > I think there is confusion in how the ACL model is going to be > implemented by vendors and used by customers. > > As Eliot alluded to, the model is trying to address the issue > of the capabilities of each platform as

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:42:43AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > One other comment, it would be good to also indicate that when an RPC > > leads to modification of data nodes, what the “origin” of those > > modifications is. > > > That is an interesting question. > > To describe this as a

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Hi Alex, On 31/10/2017 17:36, Alexander Clemm wrote: Hi Rob, A few comments, inline --- Alex *From:*netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Wilton *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:14 AM *To:* Martin Bjorklund ; a...@yumaworks.com;

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On 01/11/2017 06:36, Phil Shafer wrote: Robert Wilton writes: ii) However, as far as I can see, it doesn't make sense for an action to directly affect the contents of any configuration datastore, that should be done via a purpose built rpc (like edit-config). An example action would be to

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

Mahesh, I think the question is why we need to have different match containers for each possible feature set combination instead of having a single match container with groups of leafs in it marked as features. This would seem to cut down the size of the module and the tree diagram significantly.

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

Kristian, I think there is confusion in how the ACL model is going to be implemented by vendors and used by customers. As Eliot alluded to, the model is trying to address the issue of the capabilities of each platform as they exist across the industry but also within each vendor. So the first

Re: [netmod] YANG model for netowrk configuration of a device's management interface

Hi, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Hi, > I'm working on adding NETCONF support for configuring network on a few > management interfaces of our product, a random network appliance. I > would prefer not to reinvent this particular wheel, so I started > searching for existing models. I

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Robert Wilton writes: >ii) However, as far as I can see, it doesn't make sense for an action to >directly affect the contents of any configuration datastore, that should >be done via a purpose built rpc (like edit-config). An example action would be to retrieve the fingerprint of an ssh key.