Re: [netmod] WG Last Call resolutions incorporated in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-06

Hi Alex, Sorry for a late reply as I spent the last week for an urgent business trip. Please see my comments in line with [YJ] Thanks, Yuanlong -Original Message- From: Alex Campbell [mailto:alex.campb...@aviatnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:15 AM To: Jiangyuanlong;

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

This closes the Last Call on this document. There is clearly a lot of interest in the publication of an ACL model, but there also seems to be significant concern for how this model is structured. It seems that we need to spend some more time to ensure the current structure is okay. Based on

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-08

This closes the schema-mount Last Call. Looking at the responses, there is strong support for publication after a variety of Last Call comments have been addressed, some threads of which may still be ongoing. The authors should post an update addresses the Last Call comments followed by a

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Humm. I don't think this is how Chris is envisioning it. We can talk more next week when he presents. Lou On November 6, 2017 12:31:18 PM Robert Wilton wrote: On 06/11/2017 17:24, Lou Berger wrote: On 11/6/2017 12:17 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: What is default

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On 06/11/2017 17:24, Lou Berger wrote: On 11/6/2017 12:17 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: What is default content of a list? Where is this coming from? Whatever the vendor chooses in their code, and perhaps what gets defined in future model definitions... This is mixing up config and

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On 11/6/2017 12:17 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > What is default content of a list? Where is this coming from? Whatever the vendor chooses in their code, and perhaps what gets defined in future model definitions... Lou > /js > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On 06/11/2017 17:02, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: The tags draft has an RPC to 'reset to default state'. I could see wanting the reset to be persistent or not depending on actual usage... In general, I think we love the usage of

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

What is default content of a list? Where is this coming from? /js On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > What's the standard way to reset a list to a default (based on > implementation)? > > On 11/6/2017 12:02 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Trying to summarize this issue. > > The problem is which datastore is used to: > > 1a. evaluate action ancestor nodes > 1b. evaluate action input/output parameter leafref, > instance-identifier,

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

What's the standard way to reset a list to a default (based on implementation)? On 11/6/2017 12:02 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> The tags draft has an RPC to 'reset to default state'. I could see >> wanting the reset to be

[netmod] Reset tags RPC [was Re: Action and RPC statements]

Renaming this sub thread to avoid confusing the main discussion. On 06/11/2017 16:48, Lou Berger wrote: On 11/06/2017 11:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: On 06/11/2017 15:51, Lou Berger wrote: On November 6, 2017 10:21:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lou, All of proposed

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > The tags draft has an RPC to 'reset to default state'. I could see > wanting the reset to be persistent or not depending on actual usage... > In general, I think we love the usage of standard operations like edit-config to

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On 11/06/2017 11:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 06/11/2017 15:51, Lou Berger wrote: >> >> >> On November 6, 2017 10:21:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: >> >>> Hi Lou, >>> >>> All of proposed solutions (A through D) allow the action or the RPC to >>> perform whatever behaviour

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On 06/11/2017 15:51, Lou Berger wrote: On November 6, 2017 10:21:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lou, All of proposed solutions (A through D) allow the action or the RPC to perform whatever behaviour that it wants. This issue is only about which datastore is used to

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On November 6, 2017 10:21:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lou, All of proposed solutions (A through D) allow the action or the RPC to perform whatever behaviour that it wants. This issue is only about which datastore is used to evaluate and check that the parameters for

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Hi Lou, All of proposed solutions (A through D) allow the action or the RPC to perform whatever behaviour that it wants. This issue is only about which datastore is used to evaluate and check that the parameters for the action/rpc are valid.  E.g. if the parameters use when, must, leaf-ref,

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

So i guess this comes down to D listed below. While i was expecting C, i think D is probably workable. How would you envision the override would be expressed? Lou On November 6, 2017 9:49:49 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote: Lou Berger wrote: Martin, If I

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Lou Berger wrote: > Martin, > > If I have an RPC or action that changes state, how would the > persistence of that state be indicated with an NMBA data stores. I > expected it to be related to the data store, but I read your mail > below as saying otherwise The side effects

Re: [netmod] draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-00.txt : Re: [RTG-DIR] handling module incompatibility => handling module transition

I agree that semantic versioning is only part of the solution. In OpenConfig versioning we have the concept of release bundles that have a semver, these contain modules that are known to work together - and are the base for compliance descriptions. The individual modules semver has been useful to

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 02:19:24PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Trying to summarize this issue. > > The problem is which datastore is used to: > > 1a. evaluate action ancestor nodes > 1b. evaluate action input/output parameter leafref, > instance-identifier, must,

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Martin, If I have an RPC or action that changes state, how would the persistence of that state be indicated with an NMBA data stores. I expected it to be related to the data store, but I read your mail below as saying otherwise Thanks, Lou On November 6, 2017 8:20:12 AM Martin Bjorklund

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Hi, Trying to summarize this issue. The problem is which datastore is used to: 1a. evaluate action ancestor nodes 1b. evaluate action input/output parameter leafref, instance-identifier, must, when 2. evaluate rpc input/output parameter leafref, instance-identifier,

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

On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 15:03 -0400, Christian Hopps wrote: > I've reviewed this draft (-08), and I think it's ready for publication. > > A nit, the text: > > Page 4 item 3: "The mounted schema is defined by instance data that is > part of the mounted data model." So would it be better to say