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 Data Structure Extensions
Authors : Andy Bierman
Martin Bjorklund
Hi,
While looking at Section 3.1, it looks like this document does not mandate that
all IETF drafts in future MUST have atleast one module-tag. Is this correct ?
Or whether it is better that future IETF draft MUST/SHOULD have at least one
IETF tag ?
Consider modules like "ietf-yang-types" and
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 17:50, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>
> Hi, Christian.
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> I understand your intent, but the intent and the specification appear to be
> in conflict.
>
> The pattern for tags is
> pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9-_]*:[S ]+';
>
> This RE
[to this thread in general, not anyone in particular]
We have done this work over 2 years in the working group. It has been presented
multiple times with multiple revisions etc. We have arrived at a solution that
works, and has cleared WG LC, and IETF LC.
We have a process we need to follow it.
In that case, why not make it so the tags are actually valid URIs, similar to
XML namespaces?
From: netmod on behalf of William Lupton
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2019 7:37 a.m.
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies; IETF discussion list; NetMod
Hi, Christian.Thanks for the quick response.I understand your intent, but the
intent and the specification appear to be in conflict.The pattern for tags is
pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9-_]*:[S ]+'; This REQUIRES two
character strings separated by a colon unless I have totally forgot
The Network Modeling (netmod) Working Group will hold
a virtual interim meeting on 2019-03-20 from 10:00 to 12:00 America/New_York.
Agenda:
Agenda: YANG Next Scoring (cont.)
The primary goal of this meeting is to attempt to better score the following
values: importance-unknown, backcompat-unknow
On 07/03/2019 21:47, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> One quick question: what are the sub-statements allowed under a
>> 'yangmnt:mount-point "foo"' ? I see RFC8529 is using 'description', but
>> could not find a definitive list.
> Wow, nobody catched this! Maybe an argument for
> https://github.com/net
On 07/03/2019 21:47, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Can I assume it's only config/description/reference/status, or is it a
>> larger set?
> W/o additional text, I think description/reference/status. But it is
> not clear at all :(
Section 3.3 seems to imply "config" is allowed, but I do not have the
Robert Varga wrote:
> On 07/03/2019 04:59, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
> > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
> >
> >
> > RFC 8528
> >
> > Title: YANG Schema Mount
>
> Awesome, congrats :)
>
> One quick question: what are th
On 07/03/2019 04:59, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>
> RFC 8528
>
> Title: YANG Schema Mount
Awesome, congrats :)
One quick question: what are the sub-statements allowed under a
'yangmnt:m
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> We already have a reviewed and approved prefixes registry.
>
> Given nothing is broken here, and the current solution has been reviewed for
> 2+ years, and with careful consideration approved by the working group, this
> does
For those interested in the YANG-next, there are three upcoming events:
1) a 2-hour virtual interim on Mar 20 (the IESG-Secretary will send out the
invite shortly)
2) a 10-15 minute presentation on Monday, Mar 25 in NETMOD session #1
3) a 2-hour deep-dive meeting on Wednesday, Mar 2
We already have a reviewed and approved prefixes registry.
Given nothing is broken here, and the current solution has been reviewed for 2+
years, and with careful consideration approved by the working group, this does
not seem like change that should be considered (or perhaps even suggested) a
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:42 AM Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> > I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
> > I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
> > (Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM William Lupton
wrote:
> This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details)
> but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that
> registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes.
> https://www.iana.org/
Andy Bierman writes:
I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
(Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix
"vendor:"
seems a bit short-sighted)
Sounds like you are a st
This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details)
but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that
registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
On Thu, 7 Mar 2
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Christian Hopps wrote:
> Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
>
> > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <
> ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> > Review result: Almost Ready
> >
>
> > If I re
19 matches
Mail list logo
