Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

Hi - On 11/2/2017 2:12 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: I can’t think of a specific problem immediately.  But I think it means templates would be considered as “applied” always right ?  Or do you see cases where templates don’t show up when is read ? Pure speculation... consider

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: > Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant the element would > be directly under , so the system knows where to start > looking for data. Guessing is bad. > > Totally agree guessing is bad. Did you see the proposal in a previous

Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > I can’t think of a specific problem immediately. But I think it means > templates would be considered as “applied” always right ? Or do you see > cases where templates don’t

Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

"Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" writes: >The DS needs to have both the template itself in the schema as well >as >whatever nodes are used to hold 'exploded' data. But what about intended and >operational ? For JUNOS, we carry both the raw and expanded views, though nothing in JUNOS is

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant the element would be directly under , so the system knows where to start looking for data. Guessing is bad. Thanks, Phil Andy Bierman writes: >So a server will be required to guess the correct datastore until it >finds the right one that matches the action

Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

Hi Andy, I can’t think of a specific problem immediately. But I think it means templates would be considered as “applied” always right ? Or do you see cases where templates don’t show up when is read ? Special rules are likely to be needed for validation though. A DS (with templates)

[netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-08

Hi, I have read this document and think that is almost ready for publication. I have five discuss items and a bunch of nits. Kent // contributor 1. From Section 4: Routing configuration inside an NI often needs to refer to interfaces (at least those that are assigned to the NI), which

Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

Hi, On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Kent, > Yeah - I realize that I'm jumping ahead of where we are. I'm a bit > worried that we're making forward looking assumptions that we'll be able to > stick to those constraints that

Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

Hi Kent, Yeah - I realize that I'm jumping ahead of where we are. I'm a bit worried that we're making forward looking assumptions that we'll be able to stick to those constraints that we're defining in revised-datastores, and we may find that difficult later. For this specific issue I suppose

[netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

Hi guys, Templates are something that may be problematic for this concept of common schemas across the running/candidate/intended DSes and then operational being a superset. The DS needs to have both the template itself in the schema as well as whatever nodes are used to hold 'exploded'

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

On 02/11/2017 16:41, Kristian Larsson wrote: On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:53:29PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: One further refinement might also be to make the ACL type features a bit more hierarchical as well, but I don't know if that makes it too complex? I was pondering this for a bit but

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

Hi, I have read this document and think that is almost ready for publication. I have one general comment regarding the YANG module library (at the end), and a few nits, but otherwise the draft looks good. 1. Sec 1. Introduction paragraph 2, "internal node".  It wasn't absolutely clear to me

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

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:53:29PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > One further refinement might also be to make the ACL type features a bit more > hierarchical as well, but I don't know if that makes it too complex? I was pondering this for a bit but I'm not sure it actually helps. > For example,

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

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:26 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > Hi Andy > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> >>> Hi Rob, Mahesh, >>> >>> Thanks for reading.

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

Hi Andy On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > >> Hi Rob, Mahesh, >> >> Thanks for reading. >> >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: >> >>>

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

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > Hi Rob, Mahesh, > > Thanks for reading. > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Ranga, >> >> Presumably another choice would to keep ACLs defined in one place (i.e. >> no

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

Hi Rob, Mahesh, Thanks for reading. On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Ranga, > > Presumably another choice would to keep ACLs defined in one place (i.e. no > grouping required), augment with ACL model with your extra MUD + other mgmt > data, and then

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

Hi Ranga, Presumably another choice would to keep ACLs defined in one place (i.e. no grouping required), augment with ACL model with your extra MUD + other mgmt data, and then have a reference to that ACL from your model. Thanks, Rob On 02/11/2017 14:50, M. Ranganathan wrote: Hi Mahesh,

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

Hi Mahesh, On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani < mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > Yes. I want to include other metadata

[netmod] YANG model for finite state machine

Dear all, we submitted a draft on a YANG model for finite state machine. At the time of IETF 99 it was originally submitted in OPSAWG and discussed in Prague. We reviewed the draft based on the comments in Prague and placed it in NETMOD. In particular, we made it more generic and we included

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

Yes. I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication. There are other works that are in progress and depend on this document. It would be good to see this one published. Thanks, - Xufeng > -Original Message- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder

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

On 02/11/2017 12:26, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Mahesh, I also think that the model would be cleaner if you don't have separate containers for each "type of ACL".  In particular, I think that the model is easier for clients, and perhaps easier to

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

Ok. Will update the model to reflect the discussion on this thread. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com > On Nov 2, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton wrote: >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> I also think that the model would be cleaner

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

Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Mahesh, > > I also think that the model would be cleaner if you don't have > separate containers for each "type of ACL".  In particular, I think > that the model is easier for clients, and perhaps easier to implement, > if a given ACE field is always

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

I agree with points raised by Juergen and Kristian. Because of design changes I have stepped down as co-author of the draft. > On Nov 2, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > Kristian, > > I hear you. What I am providing is the rational for the current

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

Kristian, I hear you. What I am providing is the rational for the current design. I would like to hear from others in the WG. We have been reviewing this draft for the last couple of years, and we are now at the tail end of the LC. I would really like to see this draft move forward,

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

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:13:04AM +0630, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > Take the case where the desired selection is l2,-l3, ipv4 and ipv6. The > current tree looks like this: > [...] > whereas, if the design went with one match container with each group of leafs > in their own container

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

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:13:04AM +0630, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > On Nov 1, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > Mahesh, > > I think the question is why we need to have different match containers > for each possible