If IETF modules do not define a ‘-state’ subtree, for example the
“ietf-module-tags”, each vendor who wants to support Non-NMDA clients may have
to augment such modules with a “-state” subtree of their own.
From: netconf [mailto:netconf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 18 July 2019 0
Hi Lada,
Thank you for your response. Please find inline.
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: 24 April 2019 12:40
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Schema Mount Point Instance Yang Library Clarification
Hi Rohit,
Rohit R
Hi All,
In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8528#section-4, a below example is shown for
parent references,
"
+--rw interfaces
| +--rw interface* [name]
| ...
+--rw network-instances
+--rw network-instance* [name]
+--rw name
+--mp root
Hi,
In https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07#appendix-A,
The following is a fictional example result from a query of the
module tags list. For the sake of brevity only a few module results
are imagined.
::
The "config" should be replaced with "data", as
No, I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
With Regards,
Rohit
From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net]
Sent: 26 March 2019 01:47
To: Qin Wu ; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com; Niuye
; Rohit R Ranade
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: IPR poll on draft-wu-netmod-factory-default-02
Section 2.1./ ?
With Regards,
Rohit
-Original Message-----
From: Rohit R Ranade
Sent: 21 February 2019 14:14
To: 'Christian Hopps'
Cc: Joel Jaeggli ; ibagd...@gmail.com;
netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publicat
Hi,
Please find inline.
-Original Message-
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org]
Sent: 21 February 2019 13:54
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli ;
ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org;
netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod
-name:x"
etc.
With Regards,
Rohit
-Original Message-
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org]
Sent: 18 February 2019 14:57
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli ;
ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org;
netmod@ietf.org
S
the whole, I like the idea and thank you and the
co-authors for documenting this.
With Regards,
Rohit R
-Original Message-
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org]
Sent: 16 February 2019 00:27
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli ;
ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha.
I think the value ‘intended’ should be namespace qualified to ensure uniqueness.
Section 5.2.1 in RFC 7952:
“The value of a metadata annotation SHALL be encoded in exactly the
same way as the value of a YANG leaf node having the same type as the
annotation”
{
"example:interface" : [
Editorial Comments:
1. Section 1, refers to RFC6020 for Yang Module, but since this document uses
Yang Version 1.1, I feel it should refer to RFC7950
2. Section 4.3, " removed with using normal configuration", can use "removed
by using normal configuration"
3. Description of statement "leaf-li
it and provide your opinions. Any comments are
appreciated.
With Regards,
Rohit
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: 05 February 2019 11:10
To: Rohit R Ranade ; Rohit R Ranade
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-ranade-netmod
2019 18:36
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: lho...@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Schema Mount Yang Library Update
Hi,
I think the only reasonable answer is that this behavior must not be dependent
on your implementation strategy so the answer must be the same if you choose to
use a shared YL or
Hi All,
Consider that we have a physical device, where a LNE (say "lne1" ) has been
created. This LNE will be mounting some modules.
Note: For brevity sake, I have not included the prefix for each node in the
xpaths mentioned below.
Consider the following scenario :
1. NACM module exists
Hi Authors,
Any suggestions regarding the question in the below mail ?
With Regards,
Rohit
From: Rohit R Ranade
Sent: 28 December 2018 09:37
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Schema Mount Yang Library Update
Hi All,
For the shared-schema type, the draft mentions "all instances of the same
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: 04 January 2019 18:22
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [netmod] Schema Mount with Inline Type
Rohit R Ranade writes:
> Hi,
>
> I donot have a specific scenario as of now. But the scenari
future, if "inlined" schema needs to use parent-schema, it needs to use a
"bind" mechanism to add entries from the module in parent-schema to the same
module under mount-point ?
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: 02 January 2019 19:
Hi All,
For the shared-schema type, the draft mentions "all instances of the same mount
point MUST have the same YANG library content identifier".
I think to achieve above condition, most vendors will plan to have only one
YANG library instance for that mount-point.
If use multiple instances f
-rides the actual "config" true definition of the mounted models. If indeed
the goal is to allow only "read" access why not use the NACM way for it ?
With Regards,
Rohit
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: 21 December 2018 17:41
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.o
Hi All,
+--ro mount-point* [module label]
+--ro module yang:yang-identifier
+--ro label yang:yang-identifier
+--ro config?boolean
1. When reading the schema mount draft it is not clear for which
use-
Hi All,
module: ietf-yang-schema-mount
+--ro schema-mounts
+--ro namespace* [prefix]
| +--ro prefixyang:yang-identifier
| +--ro uri? inet:uri
+--ro mount-point* [module label]
+--ro module yang:yang-identifier
> > YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
> >
> > --
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5517
> >
> > --
> > Type:
Hi All,
So the conclusion here is to raise an Errata on RFC 7950 ? Can others please
provide your thoughts.
With Regards,
Rohit
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: 08 October 2018 23:25
To: Andy Bierman ; Lou Berger
Cc: Ignas Bagdonas ; Warren Kumari ;
Clarification
Hi Rehat,
On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 10:12 +, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 1.. The term “data model” is used many times in this document, but it is
> not defined in this document but defined in RFC 7950. I think it
> should be added under the “following
Hi,
1. The term "data model" is used many times in this document, but it is
not defined in this document but defined in RFC 7950. I think it should be
added under the "following terms are defined in [RFC7950]" part.
2. The term "This document allows mounting of complete data mode
: Rohit R Ranade ; Balázs Lengyel
; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-wu-netmod-factory-default-01.txt
Thanks Rohit, see reply inline below.
发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Rohit R Ranade
发送时间: 2018年10月22日 12:59
收件人: Balázs Lengyel; netmod@ietf.org
Some suggestions,
1. In YANG module, the identity has name as “factory-default”, but many
places the name "factory-default-running" is used. I suggest we used
“factory-default”in all places.
2. This YANG module is importing ietf-netconf module. I suggest that this
import should
Either defining a new module in an Appendix or a subtree, I am OK with either
and both of us concur that the draft needs the changes.
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 17 October 2018 18:18
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc
If the server does not yet support NETCONF-NMDA / RESTCONF-NMDA drafts, then we
will need this separate subtree to show the system defined tags.
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 17 October 2018 17:22
To: Rohit R Ranade
age-
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org]
Sent: 17 October 2018 14:08
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: Christian Hopps ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Review comments for module-tags-02
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 12:09 AM, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
>
> 1. In the desrciption of leaf-lis
1. In the desrciption of leaf-list tag
"
The operational view of this list will contain all
user-configured tags as well as any predefined tags that
have not been masked by the user using the masked-tag leaf
list below.
"
==> So the predefined tags, sh
Instead of choosing the origin for non-presence container as "unknown" or any
other origin, I would prefer if the rule in annotation definition " The origin
for any top-level configuration data nodes must be specified." can be relaxed.
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
-
Please find inline.
Rohit R Ranade
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 27 September 2018 14:22
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 8342 : Query about NMDA Origin for Non-presence
containers
which is the correct way ? Whether the
top-level configuration node should contain the "origin" attribute for
Non-presence containers ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
ata
model, but given the principal aim of returning "in use" values, it
is possible that constraints MAY be violated under some circumstances
(e.g., an abnormal value is "in use", the structure of a list is
being modified, or remnant configu
nal data-store
comes in input. I would prefer if we can control this using data-model
statements then the parser can handle the error. Any thoughts ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
pproach to populate "/modules-state" is to report
the schema for YANG modules that are configurable via conventional
configuration datastores and for which config false data nodes are
returned via a NETCONF operation, or equivalent.
[Rohit R Ranade] Here the modules which are imp
Hi Juergen,
Modules which define only notifications(ietf-netconf-notifications) will be
defined in data-store ONLY. Right ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 30 May 2018 12:28
To: Rohit R
le having "rw" nodes, what is the rules for it to be considered
implemented in a data-store ?
RFC 7950 is quite clear for the rules for when a module is considered
implemented. Please clarify implementation with respect to data-store also.
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
-Original
what does it mean that state-modules have been "implemented" in the
data-store ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: 29 May 2018 16:28
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06 deviation q
ata-stores is not known to Client without
Yang-library 1.1 ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 29 May 2018 16:36
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: Robert Wilton ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmo
schema for "conventional"
data-stores should not include the non-configurable YANG module. Is my
inference correct ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: 29 May 2018 15:28
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc
> data-store will have the complete YANG tree. The schema for
> will need to add deviations with "not-supported" for all the "ro"
>nodes for this module ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
e cannot output Operational
state as shown below. Please clarify.
RFC 6241 : Description for
7.7.
Description: Retrieve running configuration and device state
information.
RFC 6241:
The operation retrieves
configuration data only, while the operation retrieves
configurati
ystem" ? Currently they may have limitations on such interfaces and donot
support deletion of such interfaces.
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: 17 May 2018 15:42
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] NMDA System controlled re
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: 17 May 2018 15:42
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] NMDA System controlled resource
Hi Rohit,
On 17/05/2018 10:30, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
Hi Robert,
So first , we try to get to know the system configuration.
Then for
is no configuration , then apply system
configuration .
Is my understanding correct ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: 17 May 2018 14:29
To: Rohit R Ranade ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] NMDA System controlled resource
Hi Rohit
low
"In addition to filling in the default value for the auto-negotiation
enabled leaf, a loopback interface entry is also automatically
instantiated by the system. All of this is reflected in
."
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
netmod mail
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:31:15AM +, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> 1. "import-only-module" is currently under the "module-set" list. How
> does the client benefit by learning which module-set imports which modules ?
All non im
ded in any data-store. Is it correct ?
6. Similar logic will apply to any module which only defines "rpc" statements
also I think. Whether need to update the yang-library draft text mentioning
these two scenarios ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
From: Rohit R Ranade
Sent: 09 May 2018 08:01
Objectives"
section.
4. Also I feel the text about "netconf-capability-change" notification
based on yang-library checksum should be moved to the NETCONF NMDA draft. Is
it not more suitable there ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
le for new
data-stores which use the dynamic identity ?
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Hi Juergen,
Some thoughts in-lined.
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: 25 April 2018 16:12
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: netc...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [netconf] Comments on
from "system", but it is under container of
"intended". So if user gives "system" for "origin-filter", the output will
still NOT have this instance output ?
? Also the container is not defined as "presence" in C.3. Interface Example,
but still
order is OK.
5. negated-origin-filter : Regarding this I feel we can add a sentence as
to when user should use "negated-origin-filter" , as "origin-filter" also can
be used for this purpose.
With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Hi All,
In RFC 6022 :
2.1.3. The /netconf-state/schemas Subtree
The list of supported schema for the NETCONF server.
In RFC 7950:
Section 5.6.4 Announcing Conformance Information in NETCONF
With this mechanism, a client can cache the supported modules for a
server and only upda
any other scenario where capabilities can be added/deleted/modified ?
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: 21 December, 2016 17:29
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 6022 Query
Hi,
Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi All,
Hi All,
/netconf-state/schemas ==> Will be used to retrieve the list of schemas in the
device.
will be used to get the actual schema file-content based on the
contents of the schema list.
Q1: Section 2.1.3 has the below statement for "version":
For YANG data models, version is the value of th
values in the query request?
With Regards,
Rohit
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: 16 December, 2016 17:47
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: lho...@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Leaf-list usage
Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi,
> Co
think in the ordered-by user case, this treatment cannot be extended. Please
clarify.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: 16 December, 2016 18:47
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: lho...@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Leaf-list usage
per
http://www.w3schools.com/xml/el_list.asp : I love XML
Schema
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: 16 December, 2016 17:40
To: Rohit R Ranade
Cc: NETMOD WG
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Leaf-list usage
Hi,
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 06:44, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
>
61 matches
Mail list logo
