Hi Balazs,
Please find my comments below.
K.
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Balázs Lengyel
> wrote:
>
> Hello Kent,
> Thanks for the thorough review and sorry for my absence and hence the earlier
> slow response.
Join the club ;)
> See answer below as BALAZS4. Removed already agreed
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 : Common YANG Data Types
Author : Juergen Schoenwaelder
Filename:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:55 AM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
> Hello Andy,
>
> I remember when we wrote these rules, we were concentrating on config and
> did not spend much time considering state data.
>
>
>
> There are rules that are good for config but not for state. E.g.
>
>- RFC7950 does not
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:55 AM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
> Hello Andy,
>
> I remember when we wrote these rules, we were concentrating on config and
> did not spend much time considering state data.
>
>
>
> There are rules that are good for config but not for state. E.g.
>
>- RFC7950 does not
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 01:55:04PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> * On the other hand, changing a state leaf from mandatory false to true
> means always including the leaf in a response.
Where do you get this from?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Hello Andy,
I remember when we wrote these rules, we were concentrating on config and did
not spend much time considering state data.
There are rules that are good for config but not for state. E.g.
* RFC7950 does not allow changing the mandatory statement from false to
true; as this
