Re: [netmod] draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-00.txt : Re: [RTG-DIR] handling module incompatibility => handling module transition

I agree that semantic versioning is only part of the solution. In OpenConfig versioning we have the concept of release bundles that have a semver, these contain modules that are known to work together - and are the base for compliance descriptions. The individual modules semver has been useful to

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016)

Hi Kent, NETMOD, On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > Please indicate your support or concerns by Thursday September 9, 2016. > > > > We are not only interested in receiving defect reports, we are equally > interested in statements of the form: > >

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

Balazs, > On 2 Aug, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Balazs Lengyel > wrote: > I prefer a tight definition so even if we allow both 1) and 2) we should > state that other combinations e.g. trees spliting close to the leaves or a > mix of 1) and 2) in the same module are not

Re: [netmod] derived-from-or-self leads to circular import

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 07:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > I think moving the definition of entity-physical-class into > iana-entity makes sense. Perhaps this is generally a good pattern to > follow for base identities for which IANA maintains derived

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

> On 26 Jul, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > What other alternatives are available? As a WG we need to tell the other WGs > how the IETF YANG models should be structured. An interested observer could note that the convention that was described in the initial

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

Hi Lou, We’re currently working to rev the model that it describes - there are some issues we’ve come across when trying to utilise it - and define bundles of the models that it defines. I expect that once this work has been done we’ll rev the draft. None of the authors will be at the IETF

Re: [netmod] 'Namespace Qualified' in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08

Thanks Lada and others for the responses here. Much clearer to me. r. On 4 March, 2016 at 5:05:03 AM, Ladislav Lhotka (lho...@nic.cz) wrote: Hi Rob, Rob Shakir <r...@rob.sh> writes: > Hi NETMOD, > > I am in the process of implementing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json–08,

[netmod] 'Namespace Qualified' in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08

Hi NETMOD, I am in the process of implementing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json–08, and had some queries as to the content. Hopefully there is some misunderstanding on my part, or it helps to clean up the text for future people reviewing/implementing. The phrase ‘namespace-qualified’ seems to have

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

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 > counters/statistics it influences, which might be in different

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

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] Motivations for Structuring Models

Hi Martin, Thanks for the reply. Martin Bjorklund mailto:m...@tail-f.com August 28, 2015 at 02:33 So the idea is that this structure is defined in one module, ietf-something-structure, right? And then different oam protocol modules augment this structure? How does this help you find the

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Hi Andy, I’m struggling with this debate. On August 27, 2015 at 13:59:55, Andy Bierman (a...@yumaworks.com) wrote: Sorry -- are you suggesting that maybe /device adds no value beyond /? If so, I agree. No, I am suggesting that should understand what the alternatives to solving issues are,

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Hi Lada, Thanks for the reply. On August 27, 2015 at 11:21:18, Ladislav Lhotka (lho...@nic.cz) wrote: This one is actually easy to explain, exactly as the top-level container  interfaces in ietf-interfaces: it is a courtesy to XML encoding.  Apologies, I’m not sure my question was clear enough.

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Hi Andy, On August 27, 2015 at 14:48:58, Andy Bierman (a...@yumaworks.com) wrote: Did you really think that just because we created a nice DML that somehow you would not need to know about the topic of your YANG module? I actually have heard this complaint from some people.  Great.  How does

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Martin, Apologies, I switched to a new client and, wow, yes, it's not readable. I reported a bug and switched clients again... I *hope* this one is more readable (and it was when I checked last). I'll put aside questions of whether the questions I'm asking are completely fair. Apologies.

Re: [netmod] draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate: Changes in -01

Martin, To be clear -- I'm not proposing any changes to YANG or NETCONF. I was merely trying to write down the discussion that we had on one of the interims about ways that 'datastores' may be considered by some implementations, particularly as this view can mean that they might be able to

[netmod] draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate: Changes in -01

Hi netmod folks, Prior to the Prague IETF, Anees, Marcus and I took some time to update draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate. The intent of this update was two-fold: * to provide clarifications of the types of data that we consider to exist within a YANG module. This very much reflects the

Re: [netmod] draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate: Changes in -01

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: I assume you meandatastore, path instead ofRPC-call, path. /js Hi Juergen, Generically, the intent here is express that it is 'some-access-method, path' rather than merely 'path'. The 'some-access-method' might be a reference to a particular datastore, or a

Re: [netmod] Follow up on the openconfig oper status and the NETMOD interim

On 25 June 2015 at 09:35:19, Martin Bjorklund (m...@tail-f.com) wrote: So can you give an example of when the commit would hang until a  dependency have been fulfilled?  In cases where there is another “commit” ongoing from another user, and this must complete before it is possible to apply

Re: [netmod] Follow up on the openconfig oper status and the NETMOD interim

of your diagram are already standardized in NETCONF.  The startup and candidate capabilities as defined in RFC 6241 are not related to operational state. Andy On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Rob Shakir r...@rob.sh wrote: Hi netmod, Thanks very much to everyone that has considered the problem

Re: [netmod] follow-up from virtual interim and i2rs discussions

Hi Martin, The table you have is consistent with the proposal that we laid out in the last interim. Now that we understand the problem, it’d be great to move on to solutions :) Cheers, r. On 24 June 2015 at 10:39:53, Martin Bjorklund (m...@tail-f.com) wrote: Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] Follow up on the openconfig oper status and the NETMOD interim

Hi netmod, Thanks very much to everyone that has considered the problem that we laid out on the last interim call. I think we’re starting to reach a common understanding. If I can make some slight tweaks to the diagrams that have been distributed: And some further clarifying