matters, it
does not simplify communication.
--- Alex
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 12:08 AM
To: Alexander Clemm (alex) <a...@cisco.com>
Cc: Carl Moberg (camoberg) <camob...@cisco.com
(camoberg)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>
Cc: Alexander Clemm (alex) <a...@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?
> On Apr 8, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>
I am wondering what purpose the classification really serves. At the end of
the day, it seems to me that we are trying to express a model hierarchy, and
articulate what the layers in the hierarchy are. A device model is thus at a
lower layer than a service model. An implementation of the
Hi, Martin, Lada,
unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the discussion, but I have one comment
regarding the "definition" vs "implementation" distinction.
Clearly, peer-mount and alias-mount have a definition component to it. This is
why the YANG extensions were defined to define
Support
I would like to see this go in a direction where this can merge and be clearly
complementary with Alias-Mount and Peer-Mount.
Thanks
--- Alex
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:18 AM
To:
)
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Alexander Clemm (alex) <a...@cisco.com>; Eric Voit (evoit)
<ev...@cisco.com>; Alexander Clemm (alex) <a...@cisco.com>; Jan Medved
(jmedved)
Hi,
I have one addition on top of Eric's response
--- Alex
>
> Is your alias mount simply a special case of a peer mount where the
> peer is local? Or is there more to it?
>From a syntax standpoint, peer mount is more general. But underneath, things
>get more complicated.
For example,
How about calling it YANGNG?
Cheers
--- Alex
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:13 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] yang-next
All,
I see too many emails go by where someone has an idea that they’d like to get
into a
Juergen, I think you are correct. Also alias-mount and peer-mount (not just
schema-mount) specify mountpoints in the schema. They are not about mounting
arbitrary data in arbitrary places, but defining a model with mountpoints
declared.
--- Alex
-Original Message-
From: netmod
[mailto:kwat...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:27 AM
To: Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco) <rwil...@cisco.com>
Cc: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>; netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>; Alexander Clemm
(alex) <a...@cisco.com>; Eric Voit (evoit) <e
Hi,
this was intended as an example. The reason to include the interfaces module
is the scenario in which a controller would like to have a model/inventory of
the various interfaces across the network. Each network device will have its
own instantiation of the interfaces module. Rather than
Forwarding to NETMOD as people there might be interested as well
(for those subscribed to both mailers, apologies for the spam...)
From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm
(alex)
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 1:57 PM
To: netc...@ietf.org
Subject: Re
Hi,
I have two quick questions with regards to anydata - related to the topic of
the thread, but concerning a separate topic.
(1) How does yang-patch interact with anydata? In particular, could you apply
a yang-patch edit to a data node within the anydata? (While the module may not
have
Thanks, Martin, this is very clear.
(Too bad actually - I could see applications for this.)
--- Alex
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Alexander Clemm (alex) <a...@cisco.com>
Cc: j.schoenwael...@
FWIW, I prefer I-D as well. This is a very well established and very well
understood process. One advantage is that things are very easy to find (from
the documents page). Regardless which way is chosen, having the IETF
datatracker page as an entry point from where to find stuff is IMHO a
Hi Randy,
GDMO had some very powerful concepts. The ability to separate definition
hierarchy and containment hierarchy is indeed very powerful. In many ways, it
was ahead of its time. The problem I see is that in the context of YANG (much
simpler), I don't think the same concept of name
to / have
dependencies on the mounted data.
Regarding naming, do you have an alternative suggestion?
Cheers
--- Alex
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:27 PM
To: Alexander Clemm (alex) a...@cisco.com
Cc: lho...@nic.cz
17 matches
Mail list logo
