[netmod] Fwd: RE: Regarding IEEE/IETF coordination draft draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang

-netmod-intf-vlan-yang Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 19:51:14 + From: Glenn Parsons <glenn.pars...@ericsson.com> To: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <droma...@avaya.com>, ops-...@ietf.org <ops-...@ietf.org> CC: netconf-cha...@ietf.org <netconf-cha.

Re: [netmod] netmod - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 97

Hi, A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Lou Berger, a Chair of the netmod working group. - Working Group Name: NETCONF Data Modeling Language Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Lou Berger

[netmod] RFC087bis and intended/applied status guideline

Dear all, Where do we capture this outcome, cut/pasted from the NETMOD chairs into slides: "Models need not, and SHOULD NOT, be structured to include nodes/leaves to indicate applied configuration" RFC6087 is about: "_Guidelines _for _Authors _and _Reviewers _of _YANG Data Model

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-01.txt: compilation error

Dear authors, Part of the IETF hackathon today, I integrated confdc , as a second YANG module compiler, in http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html. Reason? For example, confdc validates xpath while pyang doesn't. And confdc found an issue with your draft, which is now flagged as

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-entity-00.txt: compilation error

Dear authors, Part of the IETF hackathon today, I integrated confdc , as a second YANG module compiler, in http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html. Reason? For example, confdc validates xpath while pyang doesn't. And confdc found an issue with your draft, which is now flagged as

[netmod] In preparation of our NETMOD meeting in Berlin

Dear all, $ wgstatus - sNETMOD # Document Status Since 2016-04-08 00:00:00 ## New WG-Docs draft-ietf-netmod-entity-00[u'I-D Exists', u'WG Document'] draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-01 [u'I-D Exists', u'WG Document'] ## Updated WG-Docs draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14

Re: [netmod] contact statement content

On 7/6/2016 3:26 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Dale R. Worley > wrote: Kent Watsen > writes: > 1) Remove the text "In addition, the Area Director and other

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-02.txt posted

Dear all, We have posted draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification version 2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/ We believe that we have addressed all the open issues, and that this draft is ready for WGLC. Regards, Carl, Dean, and Benoit

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1 final review of the edits resulting from the IESG process

Thank you Jürgen and Martin. The document really improved IMO. Regards, Benoit Hi, Martin has posted revision -13 of the YANG 1.1 specification. This revision incorporates all comments that we have received during the IESG process. A big thanks in particular to our gen-art and ops-dir

[netmod] Fwd: YANG Model Coordination Group directory closure

FYI. Forwarded Message Subject:YANG Model Coordination Group directory closure Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:35:07 +0200 From: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> To: IETF-Discussion list <i...@ietf.org>, yang-co...@ietf.org <yang-co...@ietf.org> D

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

On 4/29/2016 11:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Right, I think it goes pretty much without saying, so this sentence is >IMO unnecessary. > Apparently, this was not clear to every reader and hence the proposal to add this sentence in order to make this explicit. This is a always a good

Re: [netmod] datastores Re: AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

.@cisco.com> Cc: <netmod@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1) Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for engaging quickly. [I removed the resolved entries] Hi Benoit, Ben

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

On 4/27/2016 12:43 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Martin, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Martin, Removed some extra ones on which we agree. See in line. - Terminology: The following terms are defined in [RFC6241

[netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt - Do we want to mention RESTCONF in the abstract? From the new charter: The NETMOD

Re: [netmod] Plans for draft-openconfig-netmod-model-catalog

On 3/30/2016 11:16 PM, Anees Shaikh wrote: Lou, you may know but just FYI it sounds like Benoit and Carl were thinking about a hackathon project to populate a version of the catalog model with IETF modules yes, for the information we can extract from the YANG models. Some other info will

[netmod] Fwd: [RFC State] has been added to the RFC Editor database

Thank you all for this document. Regards, B. Forwarded Message Subject: [RFC State] has been added to the RFC Editor database Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:56:45 -0700 From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org To: lho...@nic.cz CC: netmod-...@ietf.org, netmod-cha...@ietf.org,

Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09: (with COMMENT)

On 3/22/2016 9:47 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 22 Mar 2016, at 09:10, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: Hi Kent, Thanks for the pointer. The zeroconf draft is cool beans to be sure. That describes

Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09: (with COMMENT)

Dear all, Hi Stephen, thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline. Stephen Farrell writes: -- COMMENT: -- - I

[netmod] Fwd: Blog: YANG Data Models in the Industry: Current State of Affairs

Forwarded here, in case you don't look at the IETF-Discussion list Regards, B. Forwarded Message Subject:Blog: YANG Data Models in the Industry: Current State of Affairs Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:49:32 -0700 From: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> To:

[netmod] YANG check in idintis (was: New datatracker release: v6.16.0)

Dear all, Now, idnits uses xym.py (to extract the YANG data models from the IETF drafts) and pyang (to validate them). And there is also http://www.yangvalidator.com/ And also http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html All this to help you with your YANG data models. Regards, Benoit

Re: [netmod] Consistency in YANG for Router IDs [Was: WG Chair comments on draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang-02]

On 2/26/2016 1:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Benoit, Lada, On 2/26/16, 3:32 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Lada, Hi Benoit, this was discussed a while ago in thi

Re: [netmod] Consistency in YANG for Router IDs [Was: WG Chair comments on draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang-02]

On 25 Feb 2016, at 13:41, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: Dear all, Sorry for the delay (mix of vacation and business travel). Let me try to summarize the situation as I see it: - From the routing RFCs, BGP Identifier, OSPF router ID, TE identifier, and LSR identifiers are all an u

[netmod] Both draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata and draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json are now moved IETF LC ...

Dear all, ... thanks to the new draft versions posted today. I thought I would let you know. Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03

On 2/24/2016 11:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: [...] "The 'md:annotation' statement can appear only at the top level of a YANG module." I don't understand what the top is? You mean, after the import statements. Sh

[netmod] Terminology => YANG module versus YANG data model versus YANG model : please don't use "YANG model" any longer

Dear all, Reviewing some NETMOD documents these days, I realized that we're sometimes not consistent regarding terminology: YANG module, YANG data model, YANG model. Example: All three can be found in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt and

[netmod] Welcome Lou Berger as NETMOD co-chair

Dear all, I want to be the first one to thank Lou Berger who accepted to become the NETMOD co-chair, replacing Tom Nadeau. Lou has been working on YANG for some time now, including his work on the routing YANG design team. Recently, I asked Lou and Acee to produce a comparison of the three

Re: [netmod] Secdir review of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04

Tom, Kent, WG, Can you please engage with Tero. I would like to put this document on the telechat in 2 weeks from now. Regards, Benoit I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments

[netmod] Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04

Tom, Kent, WG, Can you please engage with Al. Here is his OPS DIR review. Regards, Benoit Forwarded Message Subject:[OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:18:28 -0500 From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)

[netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

Dear all, I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now ready and that the write-up will be completed end of this week. In order to speed up the publication, here is my AD review. - Editorial: This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

Hi Lada, Thanks for the quick reply. Hi Benoit, thank you for the review, please see my responses inline. Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> writes: Dear all, I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now ready and that the write-up will be completed end of thi

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

Hi Lada, I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete example modules and short module snippets that are used for explaining a certain YANG language or encoding issue. If you look at this particular example, then changing the JSON document on p. 6 to {

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt

Dear all, I started the IETF last call process on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04. Regards, Benoit [Speaking as co-chair] Benoit, I believe the document is now ready for your AD review. —Tom On Jan 22, 2016:8:37 PM, at 8:37 PM, Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt

Thanks Tom, I believe the draft is good to go to IETF LC. Once I have the write-up, I will progress it. Regards, Benoit [Speaking as co-chair] Benoit, I believe the document is now ready for your AD review. —Tom On Jan 22, 2016:8:37 PM, at 8:37 PM, Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] IPR Check: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

I'm not aware of any IPR. Regards, Benoit This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for

[netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs

Dear all, I know that this draft is not yet on my table, but in order to speed up the process, I read v3. - Editorial: I see many instances of (see term) or (see terms). This doesn't add any value IMO. If there are some chance for misinterpretation of those terms, capitalize the terms

Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries

Lada, On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lada, On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Robert Wilton writes: Hi Lada, I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for here to allow both the user and system to

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Resigning Chair Position

Thanks Tom for your years of service in this very important WG. Joel and I are working on a replacement plan. Regards, Benoit I am writing to the NETMOD WG to inform you all that I will be resigning my position as co-chair. I will remain on as co-chair and continue my duties until

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Jürgen, On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: I hope that nobody disagrees that the operational state design and how to structure the models are the two blocking factors to publish YANG models. If you disagree or don't see this, let me know, I should communicate better

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Andy, On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Kent Watsen > wrote: Hi Robert, I agree that -01 doesn’t add much on top of -00. This is expected as we’re in the fit and finish phase. If you want to help finish the draft, then

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

here." This remark is done as OPS AD. Also, I discussed, as OPS AD, with the chairs, having an identity YANG model design team in the past. However, my "support" below is an individual. Regards, Benoit On Dec 16, 2015:3:55 AM, at 3:55 AM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wr

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

Dear all, On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:34, Nadeau Thomas wrote: NETMOD: The Broadband Forum and the members of the design team who worked on the IETF Entity module have asked that the working group considerthe ietf-entity YANG module (currently

[netmod] operational state: next step

Dear all: Background: the operational state is a blocking factor for the publication of the YANG models. For example, I've been told that the ISIS and OSPF models are ready, pending resolution on the operational state. Let me try to clarify the situation and the next steps. During the

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity YANG module

I personally don’t see anything that prevents this. Same opinion here. Regards, Benoit —Tom On Dec 13, 2015:6:56 AM, at 6:56 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: Concerning the 'draft status' - anything prevents the wg from running a short consensus call

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Andy, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi, I have one question related to "5.1. Module Naming Conventions". Currently, the YANG modules that I have included as part of my individual IDs don't currently use an "ietf-" prefix because the drafts haven't been adopted as WG documents yet.

[netmod] YANG model coordination group: Welcome Qin Wu as a new member

Carl Moberg Dean Bogdanovic Qin Wu Benoit Claise As mentioned in the NETMOD meeting at IETF 94 <03%20-%20YANG%20Model%20Coordination%20Group>, our current phase approach is: Phase 1: List of the YANG models (inventory) Phase 2: Tooling Phase 3: Help with compilation

[netmod] New NETMOD charter approved

Dear all, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/ was approved today on the IESG telechat. Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] open-source yang-explorer application

Great. Thanks Pravin. Regards, Benoit Hi All, As demonstrated in IETE 93 hackthon and Bits & Byte Session, Yang Explorer (beta) a open source web based yang browser and RPC builder/Tester(w/ncclient) is now available on github. https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/yang-explorer Please let me

Re: [netmod] And another peak of new YANG models just before the submission deadline

dules must be compiling. Regards, Benoit COMPILATION PASSED/TOTAL ratio, sorry. Dan -Original Message- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:32 AM To: 'Benoit Claise'; NETMOD Working Group Subject: RE: [netmod] And another peak of new YANG models j

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt - REQ 6 clarification

Thanks Rob, that clarifies the situation for me. Regards, Benoit On 14 September 2015 at 08:43:53, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: Re-reading this section 4.5, I understand 6A and 6C, but is 6B also required? Do we need to make the link between a config node and all the derived

[netmod] Fwd: Re: Openconfig protocol(s)

, or their own REST-based protocol. OpenConfig is not prescribing or endorsing any specific protocol -- we only insist that the data models be common. ... On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: From the

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt

Jonathan, Looking in from outside the current problem domain I'm not sure I'm sufficiently informed to comment, however I have a couple of queries: 1. The requirements talk about both synchronous and asynchronous systems (1(D), 3, 3(A)) but really only address the behaviour for

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Rob, Benoit, I want to pick up on this very specific point. I think Lou’s mails imply a similar position, but I want to be clear. On September 10, 2015 at 04:40:30, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: A common architecture includes a central configuration data store that is being

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt - REQ 6 clarification

Dear all, I have a clarification question wrt the requirement 6 6. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding operational state A. Ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied config nodes B. Ability to map intended config

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

Jürgen, On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:38:35PM -0400, Nadeau Thomas wrote: I wanted to set things up for the interim meeting tomorrow. To frame the meeting, we want to achieve two main goals: 1) close on requirements around a requirement to define a structure for IETF models and

Re: [netmod] minutes of the NETMOD 2015-08-31 virtual interim meeting

On 04/09/2015 18:54, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 09:29:53AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, Is there a WEB page that lists all the upcoming virtual meetings? This would really help people remember without scanning lots of ietf-announce email. The official list of

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Dear all, There is a lot of passionate debates around YANG these days, which shows how important YANG became. After the last IETF meeting, the openconfig group requested a call with me. During that call, these operators re-explained their problem to me. Let me decompose this into three

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG YANG 1.1 virtual interim meetings

[sorry for the delay. August vacation] See in-line. On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:22:41AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: Lets please not mix YANG 1.1 work with other discussions at this point in

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Andy, [taking on excerpt, out of context, to make a point] 1) As a consumer of YANG models, how do I identify the set of models that provide a set of functionality? How do YANG model writers ensure that their models are as easy to deal with as possible by having consistent

Re: [netmod] Agenda posted for IETF 93 meeting

Dear all, The preliminary agenda for the two NETMOD sessions has been posted here: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/agenda/agenda-93-netmod Please note that a discussion regarding Open Config will not occur due to scheduling conflicts. Fine, but let's not postpone these important

[netmod] Number of YANG models these days

Dear all, Just after the IETF draft submission deadline today, here are the latest numbers: Number of correctly extracted YANG models from IETF drafts: 155 Number of YANG models in IETF drafts that passed compilation without warnings: 58/155 Number of YANG models in IETF drafts

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 (until 2015-06-29)

Dear all, As a contributor, I browsed through draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata - The set of annotations must be extensible in a distributed manner so as to allow for defining new annotations without running into the risk of collisions with annotations defined and used by

<    1   2   3