Hi all,
A poll on T10 at IETF118 was pretty strongly in favor of dropping the update
about insignificant whitespace from the Module Versioning draft.
On the weekly YANG Versioning call we agreed to go with that feedback. We'll
drop it and leave whitespace as described in RFC 7950.
So
Hi all,
A poll on T9 at IETF118 was unanimous to drop the section about instance data
from Module Versioning.
In the weekly YANG Versioning call we agree: we'll remove it from the document.
If we discover something is really needed later, we'd perhaps bis the instance
data RFC 9195.
Jason
Hi -
On 2023-11-16 12:09 AM, Maria Matejka wrote:
...
we're currently trying to create a YANG-described API for BIRD. The
interface will be (at least) one large C file generated from the YANG
files, as we want the implementation to be directly tied to the
specification. What we're aiming to
Hello Jan!
On 2023-11-16 09:54, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for reaching out and explaining your plans. I think the
approach with basing your interface on a YANG module is excellent. We
have been doing similar things massively since more than decade ago,
and there a re a
I want to summarize what was presented at 118 in NETMOD, plus what was
discussed on this week’s team call regarding these two key issues.
* We will remove the multiple revision-label schemes
* The revision-label concept will be removed from the module versioning
draft and put into the
From: netmod on behalf of Ron Bonica
Sent: 15 November 2023 14:33
Folks,
Please review and comment on:
A YANG model for Power Management
draft-li-ivy-power-01
Weeel I tend to notice I-D that are announced with YANG in the title and then I
download them and start
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 11:37 PM Jürgen Schönwälder
wrote:
> If compilers can pick different revisions and this results in
> different interpretations of YANG definitions then thigns are
> broken.
>
>
Yes and no.
This has been the situation from the very start.
Implementation-dependent module
Re,
Thanks, Jürgern.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Jürgen Schönwälder
> Envoyé : jeudi 16 novembre 2023 11:30
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Kent Watsen ; Jason Sterne (Nokia)
> ; netmod@ietf.org; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>
> Objet : Re: [netmod]
I think an important piece is missing here is, namely _who_ is doing
the validation and who is in charge of keeping things valid. For
config data, the server has the task to keep the config datastores
valid (or more precisely the resulting intended configuration).
For state data, if the server's
Hi all,
Thank you all for the feedback.
Here is the text I suggest to capture the outcome of the discussion:
Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] includes a provision for defining a
constraint on state data and specifies that the constraint must be
true in a valid state data. However, Section
Hi Maria,
Thanks for reaching out and explaining your plans. I think the approach with
basing your interface on a YANG module is excellent. We have been doing similar
things massively since more than decade ago, and there a re a couple of caveats
I would like to point out:
+ Using YANG
Dear Netmod WG,
we're currently trying to create a YANG-described API for BIRD. The
interface will be (at least) one large C file generated from the YANG
files, as we want the implementation to be directly tied to the
specification. What we're aiming to do, though, is to have the code
12 matches
Mail list logo
