On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:05:07PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > So this thread is questioning why YANG allows constraints on config=false
> > data nodes.
>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > > On 12 Jan 2017, at 19:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:38:46AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >&g
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:19:54AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > YANG statements:
> >- It is not possible to define these statements so they are differ
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On 11 Jan 2017, at 17:56, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> >
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 11 Jan 2017, at 17:56, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Robert Wilton
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/01/2017 09:22, Martin Bjorkl
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Kent Watsen
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Until the basic show-stoppers a
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 11/01/2017 09:22, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kent Watsen
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it is better t
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> > Until the basic show-stoppers are solved, the redundant opstate objects
> are not important.
>
> > Removing the foo-state objects means they are now invisible wrt/ YANG
> constraints
>
> > (must, when, leafref, min/max, etc)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> I believe that shortening tranistion pain is in the longer term better
> than prociding tools that at the end just extend the transition pain.
>
>
That is a good goal, but ending up with a stab
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Alex Campbell
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I approve of all of your proposed changes.
>
> However, I'm still not sure that "[implementing] the minimum set of
> functionality that is contained in at least three vendor implementations"
> is a sensible policy.
> The fact that th
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> > I think it is better to have a human decide what is in the module
> > instead of relying on a pyang plugin to generate some additional module
> > that follows some simplistic pattern.
>
> It may be simple, but I’m thinking that’s only beca
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> I think that there may be a better way here: The data modelers design the
> model on the assumption that an operational state datastore will be
> present. We can then use a pyang plugin to generate an extra YANG model
> that contains the mi
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 10/01/2017 17:25, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>
>>> On
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
>>>
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > I think itt is not realistic to say that datastores are optional.
> >
> > e.g. leaf: If
ocessed before "when"
> statements.
>
>
>
augments and deviations are processed once when the module is loaded.
A when-stmt is processed anytime the value of the XPath boolean result
changes.
Alex
>
>
>
Andy
> --
> *From:* Andy Bierman
&g
Hi,
This is not allowed because it is too complicated to implement.
Changing the schema tree based on values of instances within the schema tree
is full of complications.
Note that when-stmt used where allowed enables or disables the schema tree
without changing it. This is hard enough to support
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > I am more concerned about use cases that are not known so far, and so I
> am against standardizing this (or any other) wo
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 9 Jan 2017, at 13:38, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On January 9, 2017 7:25:24 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> The current document involves quite a lot of hand-waving, and that's
> why I was also reluctant to accept it as
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> I don't think it is duplicate work. One is as I understand the
> architecture and concept document you were asking for
> and the other draft is the standard DS framework RFC to be used as the
> basis for different documents.
>
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review the model.
>
>
>
> My comments are inline as [clyde]…
>
>
>
> *From: *netmod on behalf of Andy Bierman <
> a...@yumaworks.com>
Hi,
I am also considering an implementation.
I share the same concerns that Alex has brought up.
Some detailed comments:
1) /syslog/actions: seems like everything is in this container.
Why is it needed? Seems like it could be removed as it serves no purpose
2) 8 features: the granularity seem
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 22/12/2016 10:49, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Robert Wilton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 22/12/2016 10:22, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>&
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 22 Dec 2016, at 07:22, Randy Presuhn stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi -
> >
> > On 12/21/2016 3:55 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 03:55:16PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:47:49PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > YANG data is hierarchical.
> > It makes no sense at all the consider the desc
d, Dec 21, 2016 at 08:21:08AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > IMO the default should be inherit from parent, like the config-stmt.
> > It clutters the YANG module to add a status-stmt to every descendant
> node.
>
> Yes, explicit status statements clutter the module bu
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > Martin Bjorklund writes:
> > > >
> > > > &
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Martin Bjorklund writes:
> >
> > > Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> The definition of "status" in RFC 7950 in section 7.21.2 (full text
> > >> below), states:
> > >>
> > >> If no status is specif
Hi,
I just checked the following YANG:
container foo {
status deprecated;
leaf L1 {
status current;
type string;
}
}
pyang does not complain about it at all.
yangdump-pro issues a warning
Warning: Invalid status: child node 'L1' = 'current' and paren
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/2016 14:09, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Andy Bierman wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:41 PM, M
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > This architectural change needs to be implemente
used. It does not differentiate between intended
and applied config
or understand different types of config=false nodes. Use a new operation to
add these features.
> Mehmet
>
Andy
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 13. Dezember
gt; > > - RFC6087bis giving guidelines on how to use YANG with the new
> datastore
> > concept.
> > >
> > > Referring to Lada's proposal concerning the spin off document from
> > > RFC7950 ("Adapting NETCONF for use with YANG"), I think this c
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Why can't you use a when-stmt?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > system
>
> >
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> >// config false
>
> >// when "/top/diag-mode = 'system'"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 09/12/2016 15:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Robert Wilton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/12/2016 12:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:25:35AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Even if they don't br
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:36:11AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I disagree that the datastore model is a protocol specific aspect. I
> > > consider datastores an architectural co
AD.
I do not have charter changes to propose.
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
>
Andy
>
> On 12/2/2016 4:44 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Which specific NETMOD WG charter item authorizes this work?
> >
> > I have concerns about impact of this work
Hi,
Which specific NETMOD WG charter item authorizes this work?
I have concerns about impact of this work on all YANG-based protocols.
I have asked several times "how do you decide which servers need to
implement the intended and applied datastores?" and never got an answer.
I think an Applicabi
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Alex Campbell
wrote:
> At Aviat we've been using deviations for this:
>
> module aviat-ietf-interfaces-dev {
> // ...
>
> deviation "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
> deviate add {
> must "if:type = 'ianaift:l2vlan' or if:type =
> 'ianai
Hi,
I agree with Jan -- NACM already exists to prevent clients from accessing
specific data nodes.
Andy
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Jan Lindblad wrote:
> Bart,
>
> Jürgen et al are of course right in what they say, but if you really want
> to use YANG to enable a manager to know a prior
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> Alas, it sounds like you are attempting to do exactly what the existing
> text is attempting to prevent you from doing. In particular, your approach
> will break an existing client from working that hasn't been coded to be
> aw
Hi,
I have a general comment, related to Benoit's request to get YANG modules
done.
Augment is your friend. Use it.
YANG 1.1 even allows conditionally mandatory nodes to be added, so there are
no excuses for not publishing base modules that can be augmented later.
IMO, adding new features in WG
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:48:35AM +0900, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 1
Hi,
How do the YANG validation rules for datastores apply to this new framework?
The YANG RFC just refers to a 'valid' datastore. Is validation ever done
on the 'intended' datastore, or just 'running' (what we have now).
The framework you propose seems reasonable but the real issues show
up in th
Hi,
I will create an updated draft before the I-D cutoff
Andy
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> Andy, all,
>
>
>
> In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues
> that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit
>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Nadeau Thomas
wrote:
>
> Adding Yang Doctors to the thread.
>
> —Tom
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 2016:4:42 PM, at 4:42 PM, Robert Varga wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > neither RFC6020 nor RFC7950 seem to be explicit about this, so I thought
> > I'd
e the YANG as well. That is not that hard.
But the type-stmt MUST be evaluated in the original document.
The patched module has a different set of prefix-to-import bindings,
so compiling the patched module may not work.
Andy
> *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
> *Sent:* T
et of valid "deviated modules" which could then be fed to a
YANG compiler
that did not support deviations. This is non-trivial and not always
possible, because of the type-stmt
and possible import loops.
>
> Regards Balazs
>
>
Andy
> On 2016-09-30 00:22, Andy Bierman wrote:
ions and they will overlap and leave gaps.
regards Balazs
>
Andy
>
> On 2016-09-28 02:21, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Alex Campbell > wrote:
>
>> > Dale R. Worley writes:
>> >> Ladislav Lhotka writes:
>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The deviation secti
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The deviation section has a lot of fluff text about how bad deviations
> are,
> > but very little text on how to process the "deviate" statement correct
Hi,
The deviation section has a lot of fluff text about how bad deviations are,
but very little text on how to process the "deviate" statement correctly.
The text is not clear if the statements altered in the target module
are semantic patches or syntactic patches. Are the sub-statements
of the
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> > Back before there was YANG 1.0 I proposed the concept of constants in
> YANG
> > but this was seen as too complicated. This is the exact use-case I had
> in
> > mind.
> >
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Alex Campbell
wrote:
> > Dale R. Worley writes:
> >> Ladislav Lhotka writes:
> >>> typedef Compression-Method {
> >>> ...
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> list node {
> >>> config true;
> >>> key name;
> >>>
> >>> string name;
> >>>
> >>> leaf-list supported-compre
Hi,
I read this draft.
I really do not like mixing metadata that could apply to any data node
(such as scheduling) into the data model. In your solution, in order to
schedule some config, the grouping has to be used in the data model.
I think the existing solution in RFC 7758 is better because i
H
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> i,
>
* "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
Andy
> Authors, Contributors, WG,
>
>
>
> As part of the WG Last Call, are you aware of any IPR that applies to
> draft identified above? Please state either:
>
> * "N
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Vladimir Vassilev <
>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Vladimir Vassilev <
> vladi...@transpacket.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/13/2016 06:48 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> >
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:48:17AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Vladimir Vassilev <
> vladi...@transpacket.com
> > > wrote:
&g
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 06:48 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not in favor of changing when-stmt so it works like must-stmt.
> I prefer it work as designed. It is like choice-stmt, where a new case
> will c
Hi,
I am not in favor of changing when-stmt so it works like must-stmt.
I prefer it work as designed. It is like choice-stmt, where a new case
will cause objects from the previously selected case to be automatically
deleted.
There is no text in RFC 7950 that actually says an error is returned
if
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > > On 13 Sep 2016, at 09:01, Yves Beauville
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Both RFC 6020 and RFC 7950 are providing the same requir
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Xiang Li wrote:
> Hi Andy
>
> On 9/12/2016 11:33 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <
> lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 12 Sep 2016, at 15:33, Juergen Schoenw
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 12 Sep 2016, at 15:33, Juergen Schoenwaelder university.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think Section 8.3.3. provides an answer:
> >
> > When datastore processing is complete, the final contents MUST obey
> > all validation co
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> "Dale R. Worley" writes:
>
> > Andy Bierman writes:
> >> Using a key of type empty is utterly pointless unless the point
> >> is to make the instance identifier longer.
> >
> > IMO
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> > Using a key of type empty is utterly pointless unless the point
> > is to make the instance identifier longer.
>
> IMO using a key of type empty (or any type with only one value) is
> *
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 07 Sep 2016, at 19:44, Vladimir Vassilev
> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/07/2016 02:18 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Your example is not circular, and it is legal. However, the 'when'
> >> expression refers to the node in
Hi,
I don't think the WG should be that concerned with other modules
that configure hardware. If there are individual leafs that we should
standardize for configuration in the IETF module then they can be discussed
on the mailing list.
An external module can use leafref instead of augment, whic
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> >On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:50:19AM +, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA)
> wrote:
> >> I did manage to find some older posts about empty types in keys. It
> >> seems that perhaps YANG 1.1 allows them but they are n
+ feature-1" or "base + feature-2" or "base + feature-1 +
feature-2", etc.
can be implemented by a server.
Andy
>
> From: netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder
>
> Sent: Friday, 2 September 2016 5:06 a.m.
>
Hi,
We keep having discussions about YANG conformance related issues.
The only unit of conformance is the YANG module, so it is possible to
think the way to solve the conformance/discovery problem is to put every
definition
in its own module. This is operationally absurd of course, so someday YANG
Hi,
I get to be the first to thank Martin and Lada for all the work
that went into these RFCs. YANG 1.1 is finally done!
Now I hope we start seeing lots of implementations of these RFCs.
Andy
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or
Hi,
I agree with Martin about not specifying which YANG modules
can be mounted under some mount point, in the YANG module.
The mount point needs some basic properties (like "config root", "opstate
root", whatever).
Then data nodes are classified somehow (e.g. config=true/false) and that
determine
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:50PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrot
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>>
>> Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and
>>> why
>>> {1. limited validatio
Hi,
This text in sec 7.5.8, para 2 is wrong:
If a container does not have a "presence" statement and the last
child node is deleted, the NETCONF server MAY delete the container.
This text in 6.4.1 is correct, which implies deleting an N container occurs
when its non-NP container
ancestor
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> > An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
>
> As I said, that's the theory, but practice is considerably different.
>
>
Anybody that implements a work
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> William Lupton writes:
> > Regardless of the discussion about “published”, other organisations
> > may be planning to use YANG modules that are currently within
> > IDs. Obviously it’s vastly preferable if such IDs become RFCs before
> > t
raft IETF YANG,
> but it might occasionally be necessary to reference a draft model
> (hopefully one that has already been sent for AD review) in a published
> standard. This is why I would like the clarification to cover IDs (at least
> WG-adopted ones)!
> —
>
> William
>
> On 1
Hi,
So this is the test that is supposed to replace 5.8, para 7:
It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within
unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date
MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-
posted.
IMO the new
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 16 Aug 2016, at 14:54, Radek Krejčí wrote:
> >
> > Dne 16.8.2016 v 14:36 Martin Bjorklund napsal(a):
> >> Radek Krejčí wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I'm not sure what is actually the default value in leaf-list if there
> >>> are mult
ion for today’s model designers to future-proof their models.
>
>
>
> Please focus on the proposal, consistent with the Lou’s chair-request (
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/NK864oXvIfeAYoCUTK40wn2Kw-8).
>
>
>
> Kent // as a contributor
>
>
>
>
>
&g
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:12:01PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> > In particular, I think that the guideline would be along the lines:
> > If a given module "foo" only contains state and no c
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> I don't properly understand the points that you are making, please see
> clarifying comments/questions inline ...
>
> On 08/08/2016 22:51, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:16 P
ated objects (e.g., interfaces). It is not directly
> related to the how to report applied configuration problem. It is however
> indirectly related, in that a holistic solution can address both.
>
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Andy Bierman
> *Date: *Monday
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Acee writes:
> >Then I see no YANG language barriers in collapsing config and state
> trees
> >- the model root just needs to be “config true”.
>
> Great, I think we’re all agreed. Can we now discuss the text I proposed
> for 6087bis?
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Balazs Lengyel writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As I understood Andy, it was already agreed that if you advertise
> > support for a model that defines extensions you MUST support those
> > extensions. So you effectively advertise support for t
OK -- sorry -- must have read it wrong
Andy
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> > The YANG 1.1 ABNF says:
> >
> >;; An identifier MUST NOT start with (('X'|'x') ('M'|
Hi,
The YANG 1.1 ABNF says:
;; An identifier MUST NOT start with (('X'|'x') ('M'|'m') ('L'|'l'))
identifier = (ALPHA / "_")
*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".")
There is no explanation given why.
The same restriction was copied to RESTCONF, also without exp
false leaves for foo must go under /foo-state.
> 2) All config false leaves for foo must go under /foo
> 3) All config false leaves go under /foo where possible, or /foo-state
> otherwise (e.g. for restconf-monitoring).
> 4) Config false leaves go wherever the model writer decides is appr
Hi,
I am somewhat confused about this discussion.
Apparently it is a hyge problem to put foo-counters under
foo-state? Configuration must be used (and setup by the operator?)
in order for foo-counters to exist?
So what problem does this solve?
The opstate solution proposal requires a config pat
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-07-28 17:13, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>> On 28/07/2016 15:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>
>> One issue I see is that extensions are effectively required to be
>> optional, allowing tooling to ignore them if they wish. This se
Hi,
+1 to concerns about stability.
Andy
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:14:42PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > We could define it using built-in statements, and bump YANG version
> num
Hi,
*Re: - Any models that augment RFC 7223 and have config false nodes will be
impacted.*
There are many such vendor modules already.
They augment the /interfaces container with config
and the /interfaces-state container with non-config.
Nobody is complaining this is broken, AFAIK.
If you tell t
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> We may have to be more explicit. A decent client talking to a
> NETCONF/RESTCONF server should pick the latest version of the YANG
> modules announced in the server's YANG library. A development
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > RW:
> > Are you thinking of a single global notification of convergence?
>
>
>
>
>
> > No
>
> >
>
> > I think the client would request a notification for its edit.
>
> > There would be a long-form and short-form notification.
>
> >
>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Please see RW: inline
>
> On 12/07/2016 20:15, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de
> > wrote:
>
>> On T
le leaving the
> intended configuration datastore empty. Operational data can be contained
> inside those list entries which exist in the applied configuration store,
> instead of needing a separate tree to contain it.
>
> - Alex
>
>
>
>
> -
801 - 900 of 1329 matches
Mail list logo
