[netmod] Review of draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-09

Hi, Most of my comments are editorial and to date only address up to the end of Section 2: Page 1 Could the Abstract be simplified to: This document defines a YANG data model for Event Condition Action (ECA) policy management. The ECA policy YANG module provides the

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Editorial comments on draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-05

- Original Message -- From: "Qin Wu" To: "Jonathan Hansford" ; "netc...@ietf.org" ; "netmod@ietf.org" Sent: 27/06/2018 09:09:47 Subject: RE: [Netconf] Editorial comments on draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-05 Thanks Jonathan for comments,

Re: [netmod] Last Call: (YANG Module Classification) to Informational RFC

paragraph: i don't understand the first sentence that starts: “Although the [RFC7950], [RFC7950] …” • Section 3.3, second paragraph: s/include ability/include the ability • Section 6: small point but I believe the second acknowledgement should be me(!), “Jonathan Hansford”, not “David” Jonathan =O

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

I understand the primary need is to make the YANG modules accessible to readers, but some simple markup is identical to how text might be formatted when only raw ASCII is available (e.g. when using a simple email client) yet, when rendered as markup, the resulting text is easier on the eyes of

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

> -Original Message- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav > Lhotka > Sent: 14 December 2016 14:25 > To: Andy Bierman ; Mehmet Ersue > > Cc: NetMod WG Chairs ; NetConf WG Chairs >

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements indrafts

How about: NEW: It is not required to keep the full revision history of draft versions (e.g., modules contained within Internet-Drafts). That is, within a sequence of draft versions, only the most recent revision need be recorded in the module. However, whenever a new (i.e. changed) version

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements indrafts

Should it be a MAY or a MUST? And why is it “e.g. of the Internet-Draft”? Isn’t it more “each time a new version is posted (e.g. in a new version of the Internet-Draft)”? Shouldn’t the revision statement reflect changes to the module or submodule rather than to the Internet-Draft in which they

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1: must-stmt evaluation in input, output, notification

s/a "input"/an "input" s/a "output"/an "output" > -Original Message- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin > Bjorklund > Sent: 16 June 2016 14:59 > To: lho...@nic.cz > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1: must-stmt evaluation in input,

[netmod] draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00

Juergen, Page 6 s/have proprietary mechanism/have proprietary mechanisms Page 9 s/in a configuration datastores/in a configuration datastore s/An example are/An example is Section 6.2 I have not been following developments with RESTCONF, but could the “content” query parameter also be used to

Re: [netmod] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-00.txt

I’ve picked up some possible typos in the document. Being British, I accept some of these may purely reflect different approaches to a common (!) language. Section 2 • s/to developing YANG model/to developing a YANG model • s/benefits that appeals/benefits that appeal •

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

A theme that appears to have been running through the discussion of languages like YANG since (at least) 2007 (see draft-schoenw-sming-lessons-01, section 3.1) is that “preference should be give to solutions that simplify the task of readers. Reduction of the efforts required by writers is of

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tighter definition of"applied configuration"

The NMS only knows the intended config if it is the only NMS capable of changing that device’s config. That may not always be the case. Jonathan From: Robert Wilton Sent: 14 October 2015 22:28 To: Kent Watsen;Andy Bierman Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a

Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container

If that misinterpretation has already happened for (at least) one individual, would it be worth adding the clarification and remove the ambiguity? Jonathan From: William Lupton Sent: 14 October 2015 23:28 To: Martin Bjorklund Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] not a non-presence

Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container

How about “closest ancestor node in the schema tree (excluding non-presence containers)”? Jonathan From: Martin Bjorklund Sent: 15 October 2015 13:39 To: jonat...@hansfords.net Cc: w...@cantab.net;netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container Jonathan Hansford <jo

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tighter definition of"appliedconfiguration"

It would be useful if that clarification were included up front for clarity. Jonathan From: Robert Wilton Sent: 01 October 2015 13:12 To: Jonathan Hansford;Kent Watsen;netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tighter definition of"appliedconfiguration"

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

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: * The requirements talk about both synchronous and asynchronous systems (1(D), 3, 3(A)) but really only address the behaviour for asynchronous systems.

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

 And it is not just end users who need help to better understand YANG models and how to use them. For those still on the edge, looking to finally take the plunge and use NETCONF/YANG to configure their devices, help is also required to determine how best to structure their YANG models, make use of