A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 216
RFC 8407
Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers
of Documents Containing YANG Data Models
Author: A. Bierman
Status: Best Current
It means if the model has a node such as:
leaf some-feature {
when "../type = 'ipv4' or ../type = 'ipv6'";
type int32;
}
and a certain device doesn't supports this on IPv6, it is not possible for a
deviation to change the condition to "../type = 'ipv4'"
Is that
Hi,
> The server implements the tags (at least the predefined ones), and the use
> cases that come to my mind at least involve clients not servers.
I assume that the server here is a network element implementing
ietf-module-tags.
I still don't see why network elements should implement
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Alex Campbell
wrote:
> > At the abstract level I do not understand how when-stmt would work
> differently.
> > IMO deviation-stmt already allows enough flexibility to rewrite the
> model to
> > fit the implementation.
>
> FWIW: deviation statements cannot be used
> At the abstract level I do not understand how when-stmt would work
> differently.
> IMO deviation-stmt already allows enough flexibility to rewrite the model to
> fit the implementation.
FWIW: deviation statements cannot be used to modify when statements - "when" is
missing from the list of
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Michael Rehder
wrote:
> That's exactly my point - I think that the wording is unclear in the RFC,
> that "conditional" doesn't necessarily mean the mandatory status is ignored.
>
> BTW a Schematron rule is emitted to ensure a "mandatory true" CHOICE has
> at
That's exactly my point - I think that the wording is unclear in the RFC, that
"conditional" doesn't necessarily mean the mandatory status is ignored.
BTW a Schematron rule is emitted to ensure a "mandatory true" CHOICE has at
least one CASE present, so there already is an "existential" check
Hi,
Adding -state modules to all new drafts seems like unnecessary
overhead. Even mentioning NMDA in a draft that has no logical
relationship to NMDA also seems like unnecessary overhead.
Not a great set of alternatives. The positive thing is that vendors that
do not have to worry about
I'll chime in as an operator here, I do not feel there is a need to support
non-NMDA implementations with this brand new work that won't be finished let
alone start being used for another so many months (at best). There's nothing
wrong with simply requiring NMDA for various modules going
The WG needs to agree whether a -state module in the Appendix is
needed. I just commented on the proposal to add a subtree, which
violates the guidelines.
/js
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:13:06PM +, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Either defining a new module in an Appendix or a subtree, I am OK with
Either defining a new module in an Appendix or a subtree, I am OK with either
and both of us concur that the draft needs the changes.
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 17 October 2018 18:18
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc:
Obviously, this is now a slightly different statement. There are NMDA
transition guidelines that have been discussed at length and finally
been integated into
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.23.3
This section 4.23.3 says under case (a):
Both the NMDA and
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 : YANG Module Tags
Authors : Christan Hopps
Lou Berger
If the server does not yet support NETCONF-NMDA / RESTCONF-NMDA drafts, then we
will need this separate subtree to show the system defined tags.
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 17 October 2018 17:22
To: Rohit R Ranade
No, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Regards, B.
No, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2018年10月17日 5:56
收件人: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Lou Berger'; 'Benoit Claise'; Qin Wu; Adrian Farrel
抄送:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:46:03AM +, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> I think we need to define a subtree for non-NMDA clients to get the
> operational tags.
It is not much of a change for a _client_ to read a different
datastore hence I do not think this is needed.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder
I think we need to define a subtree for non-NMDA clients to get the operational
tags.
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
" 2. Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system
created" information SHOULD be structured for NMDA. A
Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > Andy Bierman writes:
> >
> > This draft needs to define the module-tag encoding wrt/
> >- valid characters (e.g., some
Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 2018, at 12:09 AM, Rohit R Ranade
> > wrote:
> >
> > 1. In the desrciption of leaf-list tag
> > "
> > The operational view of this list will contain all
> > user-configured tags as well as any predefined tags that
> >
> On Oct 16, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> This draft needs to define the module-tag encoding wrt/
>- valid characters (e.g., some subset of UTF-8)
>- min/max length (e.g.,
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Christian Hopps wrote:
>>
>> Andy Bierman writes:
>>>
>>> This draft needs to define the module-tag encoding wrt/
>>> - valid characters (e.g., some subset of UTF-8)
>>> - min/max length (e.g., implementation MUST
The point is to keep this open to however the community might end up choosing
to use it. The act of pre-defining tags doesn't disallow other tags being
defined, in fact at this point I've sent a bunch of email defending leaving
things as open as possible. They both can co-exist. :)
Thanks,
Michael Rehder writes:
> I've read rfc6110 and I didn't see any mention of "WHEN" on the
> mandatory status (section 9.1.1 Optional and Mandatory Nodes doesn't
> list it which seems a bit odd to me).
RFC 6110 was being prepared along with RFC 6020, and section 9.1.1 is
closely related to sec.
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 12:09 AM, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
>
> 1. In the desrciption of leaf-list tag
> "
> The operational view of this list will contain all
> user-configured tags as well as any predefined tags that
> have not been masked by the user using the
Hi,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> OK, after reading your explanation and the example, I think I am clearer on
> the use case and the text you propose seems appropriate. Why don't you
> provide a new ID and I'll clear my DISCUSS
Thank you! I have fixed this and uploaded a new version
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 : YANG Schema Mount
Authors : Martin Bjorklund
Ladislav Lhotka
Filename
Alex Campbell wrote:
> I have no issue with systems using tags to classify or organize
> modules, however this seems to me like something that would be
> specific to the system doing the classifying.
> It would not be something that needs to be specified in the module
> itself (except perhaps as
Hi,
Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman writes:
> >
> > This draft needs to define the module-tag encoding wrt/
> >- valid characters (e.g., some subset of UTF-8)
> >- min/max length (e.g., implementation MUST support at least 64 chars
> > and can support larger)
>
> I'm looking
28 matches
Mail list logo
