[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis: Comment on node-instance-identifier

Hi Juergen, Should the "node-instance-identify" type specify how the path "/" is treated? I noted that in rfc8341, the behavior for "/" is described in the leaf "path" description rather than in the type definition, but I was thinking that it might be better if this behaviour was specified

Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?

The nice thing with the two slash approach is that it always works.  It doesn't matter whether it is text or XML, you just strip what is between the two slashes. The C '\' approach doesn't really work with indentation, and I'm not convinced that extracting code from text RFCs is dead just

Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?

On 04/03/2019 13:16, Martin Bjorklund wrote: "Adrian Farrel" wrote: We can go round and round  How do I fold foo bar baz buzz so that it can be unfolded? Clearly a possibility is foo bar baz \ buzz But what if the line length would break in the white space? You

Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?

On 04/03/2019 11:49, Martin Bjorklund wrote: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote: But this behaviour is still different from the frequently used meaning of ‘\’ today in programming languages, which as I know it just splits lines and preserves whitespace. Right, but we're not doing a programming

Re: [netmod] Augmentation with a mandatory leaf in a submodule - Is the following legal?

Hi Yves, My interpretation of the spirit of the RFC is that this should be allowed, and I don't think that any text in 7.17 specifically prevents this. However, this seems like a corner case, and I am also not surprised that a YANG compiler would fail on this.  This issue could perhaps be

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin annotation encoding in ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-05

Hi Amar, Based on RFC 7952 section 5.2.1, I think that it would look like this: {     "example:interface" : [    {    "name" : "eth1",    "mtu" : 1500,    "@mtu" : {   "ietf-netconf-with-defaults:default" : true,   "ietf-origin:origin" : intended  

Re: [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-01.txt

to construct these schema in a hierarchical way. Directly embedding the necessary information to facilitate a client reading the YANG instance data also makes sense. Please see inline ... On 14/02/2019 10:23, Balázs Lengyel wrote: On 2019. 02. 07. 13:10, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Balazs

Re: [netmod] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04

My opinion is that we should just push the doc as it stands now. I don't know whether we have the perfect set of base tags defined in section 8.2, but I don't think that this really matters.  One of the things that I prefer about tags, compared to the alternative approach of having a rigid

[netmod] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04

Reviewer: Robert Wilton Review result: Ready with Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF

Re: [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-01.txt

Hi Balazs, Regarding identifying the instance data using a YANG package. If the YANG packages work is liked by the WG and progresses, then it seems plausible that a YANG package could become a better way of identifying the set of modules rather than using YANG library for a couple of

Re: [netmod] LL comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-00

Hi Lada, On 31/01/2019 14:00, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Robert Wilton writes: Hi Lada, Thanks for the review and comments ... I've added some thoughts inline ... On 30/01/2019 14:50, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi, I think it is a good start, here are my comments (some of them were already

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On 30/01/2019 20:51, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:04 AM Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 30/01/2019 17:31, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 30/01/2

Re: [netmod] features in import

On 31/01/2019 10:58, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:44 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I do not agree these changes should be made at this late date. It seems to me that in order to support a feature you have to implement it,

Re: [netmod] features in import

Hi Lada, Please see inline ... On 31/01/2019 10:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 10:23 +, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Martin, Andy, Despite what YANG the language allows, I think that it is much cleaner use of the language to split types/groupings that are expected

Re: [netmod] features in import

Hi Martin, Andy, Despite what YANG the language allows, I think that it is much cleaner use of the language to split types/groupings that are expected to be shared by other modules into separate "*_types.yang" modules. I agree with Andy that it is strange to support a feature in a module

Re: [netmod] LL comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-00

Hi Lada, Thanks for the review and comments ... I've added some thoughts inline ... On 30/01/2019 14:50, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi, I think it is a good start, here are my comments (some of them were already raised by Jason): - I like the fact that this work doesn't require any changes to

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On 30/01/2019 17:31, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 30/01/2019 15:16, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Andy,

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On 30/01/2019 15:16, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Andy, Thanks for the comments. On 30/01/2019 01:22, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I originally brought up this issue in July 2015

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

Hi Jason, Please see inline [RW] ... On 30/01/2019 00:55, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: Thanks Rob. Please see inline. Jason *From:*Robert Wilton *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:16 PM *To:* Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ; netmod@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: initial

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

for this problem. Thanks, Rob Andy On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:55 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) mailto:jason.ste...@nokia.com>> wrote: Thanks Rob. Please see inline. Jason *From:*Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24,

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

versions would see slightly different output depending on which package version they had selected to use. Thanks again for the review and the comments! Rob Jason *From:*netmod *On Behalf Of *Robert Wilton *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2018 12:45 PM *To:* netmod@ietf.org *Subject:* [net

Re: [netmod] yang-next meeting at IETF 104?

I would also be interested.  During the week would also be best. Friday morning could also be a possibility depending on whether there are sessions scheduled. Thanks, Rob On 14/01/2019 17:10, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, Is there any interest in 1 or more side

Re: [netmod] Query about Schema Mount "config" leaf

Hi Rohit, Are you familiar with either of the LNE or NI model drafts? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/ I believe both of these drafts were driving some of the key schema mount requirements, and may

[netmod] YANG Packages

Hi, I've written up an ID for a potential solution for YANG packages using instance data: Abstract This document defines YANG packages, an organizational structure holding a set of related YANG modules, that can be used to simplify the conformance and sharing of YANG schema. It

Re: [netmod] datastore-specific constraints

Hi Lada, On 13/12/2018 09:58, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 09:51 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 15:23 +, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lada, I basically agree with Jan's suggestion. I don't think that I would use a when statement

Re: [netmod] Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension (draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf)

Hi Markus, On 12/12/2018 14:40, Seehofer, Markus wrote: Hello Robert, *Von:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2018 11:21 *An:* Seehofer, Markus; netmod@ietf.org *Betreff:* [EXTERNAL] Re: AW: [netmod] Re: Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension

Re: [netmod] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension (draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf)

Hi Seehofer, Please see inline ... On 11/12/2018 14:55, Seehofer, Markus wrote: Hello Juergen, see my comments inline below. As being quite new to the topic, going through all the old and current RFCs and drafts is quite challenging. So please apologize for "simple" questions or ones maybe

Re: [netmod] instance file parsing

On 03/12/2018 18:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:56:48AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:36 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 10:21:20AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: On 30/11/2

Re: [netmod] instance file parsing

to capture the schema, dump the relevant yang library into another instance file. That just means another file to carry around and manage. Thanks, Rob /js On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:07:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: I also think that the instance data header needs to have a way of indicating

Re: [netmod] instance file parsing

I also think that the instance data header needs to have a way of indicating which modules (and versions/revisions) the instance data applies to. It can be optional, so producers that know it is not required can leave it out.  But I think that it is required, at least for situations where

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

-identifer is useful for modules that do not want to depend on rfc6991bis. Thanks.  Sounds sensible to me. Rob /js On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:03:45AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Juergen, YANG library currently defines the type "revision-identifer".  Is this a typedef that should

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

Hi Juergen, YANG library currently defines the type "revision-identifer".  Is this a typedef that should logically migrate to rfc6991bis? Thanks, Rob On 14/11/2018 08:16, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 09:10 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Alex Campbell wrote: Does a

Re: [netmod] Datastore leaf for yang instance data

On 28/11/2018 15:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:27:26PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: On 28/11/2018 10:20, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 09:41:12AM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote: I do not buy this story. Your software needs to decide somehow

Re: [netmod] Datastore leaf for yang instance data

On 28/11/2018 10:20, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 09:41:12AM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote: I do not buy this story. Your software needs to decide somehow what instance data means. A config true leaf in candidate means something different than the same config true leaf in

Re: [netmod] Adding a pre-existing leaf into a new 'choice' - NBC change?

On 23/11/2018 13:29, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 13:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 01:02:03PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Here is an attempt to rewrite things in a way according to how I understand things works. It should be possible to

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

On 16/11/2018 00:54, Kent Watsen wrote: The servers implement the modules which can have predefined tags from the module designer as well as the implementer (vendor) which literally cannot come from anywhere *but* the server that implements the module. Predefined tags from the implementer only

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

On 14/11/2018 16:43, Christian Hopps wrote: On Nov 14, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Chris, On 14/11/2018 13:46, Christian Hopps wrote: Do you have similar objections over comments in CLI config files? No, not at all. But one difference here is that the tags are bound

Re: [netmod] comments on YANG versioning

On 14/11/2018 16:04, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Martin, On 14/11/2018 11:48, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: On 08/11/2018 22:52, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, A few comments on the netmod meeting yesterday 1) what is a bugfix? It is not encouraging

Re: [netmod] comments on YANG versioning

Hi Martin, On 14/11/2018 11:48, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: On 08/11/2018 22:52, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, A few comments on the netmod meeting yesterday 1) what is a bugfix? It is not encouraging that the DT cannot agree on the scope of a bugfix. But not sure

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

decide that they are too late.  After all, no one else, other than Alex, has expressed any concern. Thanks, Rob Thanks, Chris. On Nov 14, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Chris, On 13/11/2018 21:05, Christian Hopps wrote: The servers implement the modules which can have predefined

Re: [netmod] comments on YANG versioning

On 08/11/2018 22:52, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, A few comments on the netmod meeting yesterday 1) what is a bugfix? It is not encouraging that the DT cannot agree on the scope of a bugfix. But not sure it matters if NBC updates can occur for any reason. IMO it is easy to define a bugfix in the

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 13/11/2018 18:26, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 05:54:27PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: I think that my main point regarding version numbers is:  - If we are going to use semver then we should define and follow the rules strictly.  I.e. assuming that the semver has

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

ue example as well)?  Or do you think that this would just be needless noise. 2) Being able to filter queried data based on tags may also be useful, but this would require protocol extensions, perhaps something to be done in future? Thanks, Rob Thanks, Chris. On Nov 13, 2018, at 5:58

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 13/11/2018 17:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 03:54:11PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: Today, just using the status element alone to mark removed nodes means that a client would have to check for all changes in the module between two revisions to determine whether

Re: [netmod] [802.1 - 12909] IETF Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models - draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-04

q-vlan-tagged be present without an outer-tag, but I may be missing something... Thanks again. Lou Thanks, -- John -Original Message- From: List HELP only On Behalf Of Robert Wilton Sent: 05 November 2018 16:16 To: stds-802-...@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [802.1 - 12909] IETF Sub-

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 13/11/2018 15:32, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 13/11/2018 15:17, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel mailto:balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

ges. Balazs On 2018. 11. 12. 18:08, Robert Wilton wrote: On 12/11/2018 16:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: In the Thursday Netmod meeting, it was interesting to hear Rob Shakir describe how deviations and

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

ead, where semver is allowed. Do you think that we also need to support obsoleting YANG nodes in branches that have already been released? Thanks, Rob Balazs On 2018. 11. 12. 18:08, Robert Wilton wrote: On 12/11/2018 16:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: In the Thurs

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

Hi Joel, authors, I have to confess that I didn't have time to review this during the last call (but have reviewed/provided comments on previous versions). These comments may be too late, but I will provide them anyway, so make of them what you will :-) In summary, I like the idea of tags

[netmod] Limitations of semver

Although, we may like to think otherwise, I do not believe that semver is a silver bullet that will solve all YANG versioning problems. Yes, it is popular and used, perhaps quite successfully, in lots of projects.  But there are many other large scale projects that have not adopted semver,

Re: [netmod] missing YANG versioning requirements

On 12/11/2018 16:15, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 09/11/2018 18:35, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I think the requirements doc should state that 1) there are many more readers, operators, a

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

On 12/11/2018 16:29, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Martin, On 09/11/2018 16:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:29PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: I think we need to distinguish between the agreement

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 12/11/2018 16:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: In the Thursday Netmod meeting, it was interesting to hear Rob Shakir describe how deviations and augmentations are used in OpenConfig to add functionality into an older YANG model where the semver rules prevent the version

[netmod] Deviations and augmentations

In the Thursday Netmod meeting, it was interesting to hear Rob Shakir describe how deviations and augmentations are used in OpenConfig to add functionality into an older YANG model where the semver rules prevent the version number from being incremented. Further, I think that someone

Re: [netmod] missing YANG versioning requirements

On 09/11/2018 18:35, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I think the requirements doc should state that 1) there are many more readers, operators, and client developers than server developers so the solution MUST take into account the numbers of people affected when finding a balance between client and

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

On 11/11/2018 07:07, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Martin, On 09/11/2018 16:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.d

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

Hi Martin, On 09/11/2018 16:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:29PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: I think we need to distinguish between the agreement on the requirement, namely that a server should be able to provide support for an old

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

On 09/11/2018 11:38, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:42:20PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

On 01/11/2018 12:03, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: I think we need to find a way to limit the update to types that are known (or expected) to be 'widely' needed. In other words, for every proposed type, an argument should be made why this should be included in RFC 6991bis. So my view is: - We

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

is quite another to complicate YANG and the protocols to preserve these interim mistakes, and bake into the standards the notion that this is good engineering. Thanks, Rob /js Andy On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:17:48AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Chris, > &

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

enhancement that I was considering. Thanks, Rob Thanks, Chris. Robert Wilton writes: Hi Chris, I think that there are two things driving this requirement: What I regard as the key one, is that we want to be able to support the software that we have shipped. In particular, we may need

[netmod] YANG versioning solution comparison draft

The YANG versioning design team has spent the last few months refining some of the requirements and discussing and debating various solutions.  I would like to thank everyone on the design team who has spent time on this and participated in this effort. To this end we have produced an interim

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

Hi Chris, I think that there are two things driving this requirement: What I regard as the key one, is that we want to be able to support the software that we have shipped.  In particular, we may need to fix bugs (perhaps at the operators request) to a YANG model that has already been

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-08

On 23/10/2018 19:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Kent Watsen wrote: Hi Martin, one quick comment; the header used in the examples in section 8 isn't equal to the header defined in section 5.1 This is intentional. Section 5.1 says: The first line is the following 46-character string

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

Hi Juergen, Is this the same as Martin's alternative B proposed previously (attached)?  Or are you suggesting a different alternative? Thanks, Rob On 23/10/2018 10:28, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:20:54AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Note that the namespace

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 23/10/2018 08:36, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Martin Bjorklund writes: Qin Wu wrote: -邮件原件- 发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Ladislav Lhotka 发送时间: 2018年10月22日 21:12 收件人: Martin Bjorklund 抄送: netmod@ietf.org 主题: Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON On Mon,

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-08

Hi Adrian, all, What is the intended scope? 1) Is it just for examples of YANG requests/replies, or in future, instance data.  If so, then I think that the solution is useful for this. 2) Or should the WG consider allowing a longer line length for YANG modules?  Currently they are limited

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-08

Yes/support. Thanks, Rob On 18/10/2018 14:03, Lou Berger wrote: All, This is start of a two week poll on making draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-08 a working group document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

Given where we are, I also agree that A is the better choice. I would also like to have a context-independent encoding of all YANG types in the future. Thanks, Rob On 18/10/2018 11:30, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Going back to the most urgent issue, what is this WG's recommendation for

Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object

ot require it. Thanks, Rob Thanks Mike *From:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:42 AM *To:* Michael Rehder ; Juergen Schoenwaelder *Cc:* netmod@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the

Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object

Hi Mike, On 16/10/2018 14:26, Michael Rehder wrote: I've read rfc6110 and I didn't see any mention of "WHEN" on the mandatory status (section 9.1.1 Optional and Mandatory Nodes doesn't list it which seems a bit odd to me). The section on "WHEN" just mentions the xpath mapping, not anything

Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object

of the child nodes that are not marked as mandatory. But, sorry, at the moment I'm still at a loss to see how where this would actually be useful. Thanks, Rob Thanks Mike *From:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com] *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2018 12:06 PM *To:* Michael Rehder *Cc:* Andy

Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object

Hi Mike, On 11/10/2018 19:05, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Michael Rehder mailto:michael.reh...@amdocs.com>> wrote: I think the wording is relevant - something can be conditional but still required. Yes, but I think that this is already expressed by a

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

Hi Andy, On 11/10/2018 17:52, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Robert Wilton <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Finally, I'm trying to figure out have RFC 8040 query parameter (sect 4.8.4), which also uses XPath ex

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 12/10/2018 09:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 11/10/2018 17:11, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 11/10/2018 11:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 11/10/2018 11:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 11/10/2018 17:11, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 11/10/2018 11:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 11/10/2018 11:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

Hi Reshad, Please see RW: inline. On 11/10/2018 16:34, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: Hi Rob, *From: *netmod on behalf of "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" *Date: *Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:17 AM *To: *Martin Bjorklund *Cc: *"netmod@ietf.org&

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 11/10/2018 11:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 11/10/2018 11:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) < r

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 11/10/2018 11:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) < rrah...@cisco.com> wrote: On 2018-10-10, 9:59 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 11/10/2018 10:21, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Martin Bjorklund > wrote: Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> > wrote: >

Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't ensure presence of the mandatory object

Hi Mike, I think that the YANG below already enforces what you want, or otherwise I don't follow your issue. The YANG below is valid in two cases: (1) AssignmentMechanism = DHCP, and IPAddresses is not present in the config (due to the when statement). (2) AssignmentMechanism = Static,

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data

I would expect that there are many other alternative uses of YANG instance data. Some possible alternatives that I can think of: - Storing the configuration of a device at some point in time to a file, e.g. for archive or audit purposes. - Storing diagnostics data, if the format of the data

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5514)

Hi Lou, On 08/10/2018 13:57, Lou Berger wrote: Hi Rob/All, Keep in mind that the document says what it says and that to change text really requires a new version. On 10/8/2018 6:01 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: So there seem to be two available solutions here: (i) The server MUST provide

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8342 (5514)

So there seem to be two available solutions here: (i) The server MUST provide an origin value for the top level datanode, but for NP containers it can use whatever origin value it likes - since the origin value imparts no direct meaning other than the default origin that descendants acquire

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Phil Shafer wrote: Bal?zs Lengyel writes: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00 [I've moved to a "deep lurker"

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Phil Shafer wrote: Bal?zs Lengyel writes: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00 [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...] Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input so that future (and

[netmod] draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00, requirement 1.2

Hi Chris, At IETF 102 you had an objecting to requirement 1.2 in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00, I think because you saw that it was either leading towards a particular solution, or that it ruled out other potential solutions. To that end, I would like to ask whether the

Re: [netmod] YANG versioning requirements

On 03/10/2018 15:42, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: Hi Robert, On 10/3/18 11:44 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Vladimir, At IETF 102, when I was presenting on the YANG versioning requirements (draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00), I think you raised a concern about requirement 2.2: 2.2

[netmod] YANG versioning requirements

Hi Vladimir, At IETF 102, when I was presenting on the YANG versioning requirements (draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00), I think you raised a concern about requirement 2.2: 2.2 A mechanism SHOULD be defined to determine whether data nodes between two arbitrary

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Support. On 01/10/2018 19:48, Kent Watsen wrote: The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this draft, and no objections. This email starts an adoption poll for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00 Please indicate your support or objection to

Re: [netmod] perfect extraction, tabs, and long lines - oh my

My interpretation: Option 2 is to disallow tabs in the output, but leave it to the implementation to decide how to handle tabs in the input document, so a script would be allowed to do a, b, or c. Just supporting "option 2(a)" is the same as "option 1": 1) RFC disallows TABS in both the

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02

Yes/support. Thanks, Rob On 26/09/2018 15:40, joel jaeggli wrote: This is start of a two week poll on making draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group document. You may review at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 Please send email to the list

Re: [netmod] perfect extraction, tabs, and long lines - oh my

On 26/09/2018 15:09, Kent Watsen wrote: I recommend that we select "option-2" (see bottom). Yes, option 2 seems reasonable to me. Thanks, Rob - it easy to do. - there's no current support for having tabs in folded output. - doing so doesn't preclude an "option-3" someday in the future.

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-07.txt

nt: Friday, September 14, 2018 12:14 PM On Sep 14, 2018, at 13:05, Robert Wilton wrote: If all input files that we might ever want to fold and include in an RFC are guaranteed to never contain tabs then I agree with the position that they can just be rejected. Yep. But if there is some f

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-07.txt

On 13/09/2018 22:43, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:51 AM, Robert Wilton <mailto:rwilton=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: I've read -07, and would also support an WG adoption call for this draft.  In fact, I think that it would be quite good if we can move this

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-07.txt

I've read -07, and would also support an WG adoption call for this draft.  In fact, I think that it would be quite good if we can move this document through to WG LC fairly expediently as well. A couple of minor review comments: Introduction: RFC7994 reference listed twice. Rather than

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On 26/07/2018 15:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:19:07AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: I think that some aspects of versioning are the same problem.  E.g. I think that there is a difference between a major release where more backwards compatible changes could

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On 25/07/2018 17:59, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 05:25:32PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: One alternative way to build a robust client would be to have an internally defined schema by the client (perhaps based on open models, or perhaps a particular version of vendor

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On 25/07/2018 12:03, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:32:05PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: But if fixing a definition requires a whole new module name then I think that causes lots of problems (e.g. consider needing to change ief-interfaces to ietf-interfaces-v2 because

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On 24/07/2018 16:11, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 05:47:45PM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote: > There are actual instances where small perhaps non-disruptive

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >