Re: [netmod] https? - Regex

I think that the most relevant bits are: [3] piece ::= atom quantifier? [9] atom ::= Char | charClass | ( '(' regExp ')' ) [4] quantifier ::= [?*+] | ( '{' quantity '}' ) In https? we have five pieces, of which only the last has a quantifier So https? means h, t, t, p,

Re: [netmod] iana-if-type.yang has multiple revisions with the same date

that YANG should be either. But the tools could generate better error messages if they are inadvertently used! On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 10:01, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2022-05-25, at 10:51, William Lupton > wrote: > > > > "Coalesced revision history entries for 2018

Re: [netmod] iana-if-type.yang has multiple revisions with the same date

IANA have published a new revision with the revision history fixed. > > > > iana-if-type YANG Module > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-if-type/iana-if-type.xhtml> > > > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > > > *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of

Re: [netmod] iana-if-type.yang has multiple revisions with the same date

+1 (not surprisingly). What action? And whose action? On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 19:24, Benoit Claise wrote: > +1 to Jürgen point of view. > > Regards, Benoit > > *From:*Jürgen Schönwälder > *To:*William Lupton > *Cc:*NetMod WG > *Date:*2022-03-03 20:01:06 >

Re: [netmod] iana-if-type.yang has multiple revisions with the same date

> It is too late to do anything about this module. This module is republished every time a new ifType is added. Are you saying that it would be unacceptable to collapse the duplicate revisions next time it's updated? If so then we will live with this FOR EVER! >

Re: [netmod] iana-if-type.yang has multiple revisions with the same date

Thanks Andy. What is the next step? Should I (or someone else) email i...@iana.org, or can we assume that the relevant IANA person will already have seen this discussion? On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 14:49, Andy Bierman wrote: > > I think that this should be fixed. What's the best way to achieve this?

[netmod] iana-if-type.yang has multiple revisions with the same date

All, Sorry if (as is quite likely) this is a duplicate. I noticed from https://yangcatalog.org/private-page/BBFYANGPageCompilation.html that there's a (long-standing?) problem in iana-if-type.yang : it has multiple

Re: [netmod] warn: Module's revisions are not unique (2018-06-28).

I thought it might also be so as not to impose a module naming convention on external organisations? On Wed, 17 Mar 2021, 18:47 Andy Bierman, wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:36 AM William Lupton < > wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: > >> Also note that th

Re: [netmod] warn: Module's revisions are not unique (2018-06-28).

Also note that the YANG catalog keys modules by (name, revision, organization). On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 18:21, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:36 AM Vladimir Vassilev < > vladi...@lightside-instruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On 16/03/2021 13.36, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: >> >

Re: [netmod] Questions about how to assign default values with YANG

Thanks Lada. By my last point I just intended to illustrate that descriptions need to be regarded as normative even if they don't use normative language. On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 15:13, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > William Lupton writes: > > > Lada, all, > > > > Surely a des

Re: [netmod] Questions about how to assign default values with YANG

Lada, all, Surely a description is the only way to add a normative requirement that can't be expressed via YANG statements (including XPath expressions)? I've always assumed that it's good practice to express what you can using the modeling language, and then use the description to express any

Re: [netmod] [Tools-discuss] reflow of YANG descriptions, and general YANG format annoyances

I ensured that I have the latest version of the Emacs YANG mode, and find that M-q works well to wrap description strings, but... 1. Should I expect intelligent behaviour of RET and TAB when within a description (or other) string? I find that (in this context) RET positions the cursor at

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: yang:percentage

except that percent doesn't really seem like a routing-specific data type! (perhaps the "right" thing to do is to deprecate, and eventually obsolete, the routing one and define it in a core netmod module?) On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 14:59, Benoit Claise wrote: > On 30/07/2020 15:25, Juergen

Re: [netmod] 6991bis: domain-name

I think that "or" is slightly better here: "...does not support wildcards (see RFC 4592) *or* classless in-addr.arpa delegations (see RFC 2317)" On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 08:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:41:42PM -0400,

Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 09:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Since the constraint on the non-masked portion of the prefix is solely in > the description, there is nothing to prevent this and I'm sure the > ipv4-prefix and ipv6-prefix types are being used incorrectly. > Is a requirement in a

Re: [netmod] rfc6991-bis: "token" type?

Does the last pattern work? I think it matches any string with two consecutive non-spaces, e.g. "AA AA" ("AA" + two-spaces + "AA"). To prevent multiple spaces I think we probably need something like "([^ ]+ )*[^ ]+" (which replaces the last three patterns). Do XML regexes support \S

Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details) but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes. https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml On Thu, 7 Mar

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-00.txt

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 14:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > William Lupton writes: > > > > >> The intent was "ascii-printable". Would be nice if there was an easier > > > way to specify this. :) > > > > &

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-00.txt

> The intent was "ascii-printable". Would be nice if there was an easier way to specify this. :) Printable ASCII characters are ' ' (space) through '~' (tilde) so naively [ -~] should work ... but perhaps that makes unacceptable assumptions about the locale and/or character encoding? (Certainly

Re: [netmod] ACL draft defines ether-type as a string

Editorial: ethertype (no hyphen) seems to be more common than ether-type (28 versus 11 matches in the YANG catalog, plus IEEE seem to use the no-hyphen version). Also (even more editorial), I don’t see the need for the rather distracting ‘0x’ in the name, so would suggest ethertype- (yes,

Re: [netmod] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module status and plans

gt; There was an earlier comment in this thread by an individual, William Lupton, > saying "We at the Broadband Forum (BBF) would like to reiterate our interest > in the draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module draft." > > William, IETF has a liaison relationship with BBF. The app

Re: [netmod] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module status and plans

Dear all, We at the Broadband Forum (BBF) would like to reiterate our interest in the draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module draft. We will also have some technical comments / suggestions (internal discussion is ongoing) that we will share with NETMOD as soon as possible. Thanks, William > On 31

[netmod] Inconsistent config and state ordering in ietf-hardware

All, I just noticed something minor but inconsistent with ietf-hardware. Whereas ietf-system and ietf-interfaces declare config before state, ietf-hardware is the other way round. If there’s no particular reason for this, perhaps they might be swapped? % egrep '^ ? ?container'

[netmod] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module status and plans

All, I heard from Kent that https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module was moving to CCAMP but I don’t see any mention of it at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/documents (although it is shown as a dependency at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/deps/svg). Is any

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

yes/support my https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17899.html comments still apply; in summary: * support use of markdown, with the principle that descriptions (etc) remain readable as plain text * support defining conventions for formally referencing enums, bits, nodes etc

[netmod] BBF alarm management YANG plans

All, I believe that we last discussed alarms (and draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module) back in October when the -01 draft was published. Alarm management has once again come to the fore in BBF and I wanted to give NETMOD an update on our plans. We wish to base our alarm management support on

Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Lada, Rob, all, I would support use of markdown, with the principle that descriptions (etc) should remain readable as plain text. Indeed many of the published NETMOD YANG modules have descriptions that look as though they would already render quite well if regarded as markdown (blank lines as

Re: [netmod] yanglint and implemented versus imported YANG modules

with warning). Of course, the result is then > always false (ok, depending on the rest of the expression, but it simply does > not depend on the data presence). And this is the reason to have it at least > as warning, because it is usually not the original intention of the author. > >

Re: [netmod] yanglint and implemented versus imported YANG modules

However, for validation purposes it seems that it would be useful if yanglint > had an option to assume that all imported modules are implicitly implemented > without requiring them to be explicitly specified. > > Thanks, > Rob > > On 06/03/2017 16:44, William Lupton wrote

[netmod] yanglint and implemented versus imported YANG modules

ason of these warnings. William Lupton (that’s me!) asked / commented: Why are the complaints only about ip:ipv4 (etc) and not about if:interfaces (etc), which are also referenced in the must statements? This makes it hard for an automated tool (such as Benoit’s) because it needs to know which other

Re: [netmod] Are multiple revisions with the same date allowed?

RFC 7950 Section 7.1.9 says that “For every published editorial change, a new one SHOULD be added in front of the revisions sequence so that all revisions are in reverse chronological order.” So I think it probably SHOULD be an error if the revision dates aren’t monotonically decreasing (from

[netmod] RFC 6087bis (draft 09) description-stmt

Andy, all, RFC 6087bis nearly always says “description statement” but on one occasion it says "description-stmt” (when discussing its use within “feature-stmt”). It also usually doesn’t quote “description”, but on a few (clustered?) occasions it does quote it. The above remarks may apply more

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13

So could “being writable” be associated with a feature (which might potentially apply to multiple such nodes)? W. (and if so, what’s the cleanest way to achieve this? it seems that “if-feature” can’t be used with “config” but that it could be used by refining a grouping?) > On 22 Dec 2016, at

Re: [netmod] RFC 7277: ip-address-origin

FYI the TR-181 “Device:2” data model (a TR-069 data model) defines a conceptually similar IPv6 address origin parameter (*): —— Mechanism via which the IP address was assigned. Enumeration of: AutoConfigured (Automatically generated. For example, a link-local address as specified by SLAAC

Re: [netmod] BBF work depending on draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01

The current draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01 defines ietf-hardware and iana-entity modules. Is it intended that iana-entity will become iana-hardware? Thanks, W. ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-02.txt

Rob, all, Please note that the ietf-interfaces-common tree doesn’t seem to match the YANG (at least as far as features are concerned). Also I noticed that the module names are reported (at least once) in the draft as interface-extensions and etherlike-interfaces, whereas they are now

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module-00.txt

representatives and the draft authors, or (b) BBF-led discussion on the NETMOD list. Then BBF could use this new IETF draft (not ideal, but reduces the chances of future divergence). Thanks, William Lupton —— indication of what the BBF alarm-history feature does (still based on expired vallin

[netmod] Publication of BBF TR-355 "YANG Modules for FTTdp Management"

All, The Broadband Forum (BBF) would like to announce that TR-355 "YANG Modules for FTTdp Management" has been published. The document can be downloaded at the BBF Technical Reports page and the YANG modules are available at

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

Andy, This thread started with discussion of an apparent ambiguity in the current text: OLD It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is

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

Regardless of whether circular import is permitted, isn’t it best avoided from a layering point of view? In general I would think that a module should be importing things that (a) it needs, and (b) don’t need it. W. > On 29 Aug 2016, at 11:34, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 29

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

defined in RFC 2026. > > > > Andy > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:08 AM, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org > <mailto:wlup...@broadband-forum.org>> wrote: > Thanks. Of course I am fine with this suggestion. This gives: > > NEW: > > It

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

. However, if the module has changed, the revision date of the most recent revision MUST be updated to a later date whenever a new version is made available (e.g., via a new version of an Internet-Draft). > On 18 Aug 2016, at 13:21, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >

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

Kent, all, OK :). I will take Lada’s update to my Monday text as a baseline and will give my proposed new text without further ado, followed by rationale. BASELINE: It is not required to keep the revision history of unpublished versions (e.g., Internet-Drafts). That is, within a sequence of

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

eplace the odd "MAY" with the word "need". > >(The semantics of "only" and of "MAY" don't quite mesh.) > >Randy > >On 8/15/2016 4:44 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 15 Aug 2016, at 13:31, William Lupton <wlup...@br

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

ecide among the versions floating around in the lab. > > > Randy (experimenting with mail readers, please forgive formatting anomalies) > > > On 8/11/2016 9:17 AM, William Lupton wrote: >> Thanks. e.g rather than i.e sounds good, BUT my point (sorry if that wasn’t >> clear

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

t > date - and they include RFC-Editor instructions to reset the value again to > the date the RFC is published. > > Kent // as a contributor > > > On 8/11/16, 5:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of William Lupton" > <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of wlu

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

o > I think it is important to retain that information. However, it seems to me > that > the "i.e." is too limiting, and should be replaced with an "e.g.". > > Randy > > On 8/11/2016 2:06 AM, William Lupton wrote: >> All, >> >> The text at th

[netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

All, The text at the bottom of RFC 6087bis (draft 07) Section 5.8 seems unclear: "It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-posted”

Re: [netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity

f the interface layering hierarchy. I was just wondering whether configuration of entity relationships might be analogous. > On 1 Aug 2016, at 10:42, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 10:13:38AM +0100, William

Re: [netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity

Maybe configuration of the entity tree for pluggable items should be handled via augmentations that are specific to pluggable items? There seems to be an analogy with interfaces here. The ietf-interfaces module provides only a read-only view of the interface stack, and interface type-specific

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1: XML naming restriction

But the errata at https://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-5e-errata say the following. There are also related changes to Section 2.6 (processing instructions) and Section 3 (logical structures). W. Section 2.3 Common Syntactic Constructs

[netmod] Specifying revision date on import/include

All, RFC 6020bis has no recommendation re use of import/include revision-date but makes it clear that if it’s omitted then the revision that will be used is undefined (I believe that pyang will parse all the revisions that it finds and then use the most recent one). Perhaps that’s a

Re: [netmod] Canonical order: linkage and meta

to scroll down a bit is not really worth the > pain of having different canonical formats out there. And something > like > > // please scroll down to see the license > > does seem to sovle the problem. > > /js > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:20:02AM +0100, William Lupton wrote:

Re: [netmod] Canonical order: linkage and meta

, or we could move the license text into a comment near the top of the file. But usual YANG practice (and I like this) seems to be to prefer to put information into YANG statements rather than into comments. Thoughts? Thanks, William > On 9 Jun 2016, at 12:30, William Lupton <wlup...@bro

[netmod] bits lexical representation

RFC 6020bis Section 9.7.2 is silent on the question of whether bit names can be repeated in a bits value, e.g is “uno dos dos tres” valid or invalid? Obviously repetition is not to be encouraged but is it forbidden? Maybe this is a case where the robustness principle should be applied? Thanks,

[netmod] Canonical order: linkage and meta

All, RFC 6020bis says “The ABNF grammar [RFC5234] [RFC7405] defines the canonical order. To improve module readability, it is RECOMMENDED that clauses be entered in this order.” The ABNF places linkage-stmts (import, include) before meta-stmts (organization, contact, description, reference)

Re: [netmod] Replacing a YANG submodule with a module

of the bodies of its groupings into groupings defined in new module(s). Thanks, William > On 8 Jun 2016, at 13:38, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: > > Thanks. So the following would be valid I assume? Or (better because it > doesn’t change the module/submodule inte

Re: [netmod] Replacing a YANG submodule with a module

Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Consider the YANG module, submodule and tree files shown >> below. Suppose that I regret the decision to make “submod” be a >> submodul

Re: [netmod] string in when and must statement in YANG ABNF Grammar

It might also be worth noting (see https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/wiki/InstanceValidation) that "DSDL schemas can be used with generic off-the-shelf XML tools for both syntactic and semantic validation of XML instance documents”. This includes validating “must” statements and so on. William.

[netmod] Broadband Forum questions about announcing capabilities

All, BBF has a question about how to announce capabilities. This is illustrated by a specific example but it’s a general question. There is some overlap with past “Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis ” and

Re: [netmod] Restricting interface name maximum length and character set

of: maximum length (64) and restricted character set (ASCII 32-126). William > On 11 Feb 2016, at 13:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:22:19PM +0000, William Lupton wrote: >> All, >> >

[netmod] Restricting interface name maximum length and character set

All, Here in the Broadband Forum we are defining YANG modules that augment RFC 7223 ietf-interfaces. We want to limit interface name maximum length and character set but don't see a way of doing this in the YANG. Can/should we do do this in the YANG, or should it just be a device-level

Re: [netmod] Validation question

epresenting a YANG > identity SHOULD always include the declared prefix of the module > where the identity is defined. > > In YANG 1.1, the new XPath functions derived-from() and > derived-from-or-self() will alleviate this problem. > > Lada > > William Lupton &l

[netmod] Validation question

g something wrong here, or is there a problem with how identities in XPath expressions are translated (per RFC 6110)? On the face of it it seems that identities are being treated as literal strings (but we haven't investigated this assertion). Thanks, William Lupton YANG: module e

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis

All, I didn't see any follow-up to these questions / comments. Any thoughts? Thanks, William > On 11 Dec 2015, at 12:54, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: > > All, > > Here are some questions / comments from the Broadband Forum on RFC 6087bis-05. &

Re: [netmod] derived-from() and derived-from-or-self() arguments

Thanks all. > On 11 Dec 2015, at 09:50, Jernej Tuljak wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka je 11.12.2015 ob 9:55 napisal: >> >> A code that evaluating these functions needs to know a lot about the >> underlying YANG data model anyway, so I think it is no problem to resolve >>

[netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis

All, Here are some questions / comments from the Broadband Forum on RFC 6087bis-05. Thanks, William 1. Potentially confusing use of the term "prefix" Section 5.1 (Module Naming Conventions) talks about prefixes but in this context means "strings at the beginning of module names"

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6020bis

Thanks for the clarifications. A few follow-ups below. Cheers, W. >> a. Extending a "when" statement so it is true for a wider set of >> conditions (example: realising that an RFC 7223 interface object >> applies to additional interface types). > > This is allowed by: > > o A "when" statement

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

All, The Broadband Forum would like to use the ietf-entity YANG module (currently draft-entitydt-netmod-entity) for equipment management but we are a bit concerned about its draft status and its dependence on YANG 1.1. Any advice or reassurance? Thanks, William

Re: [netmod] derived-from() and derived-from-or-self() arguments

PS, The current definitions perhaps need to be tightened up wrt module-name (MUST be valid prefix) and identity-name (MUST NOT be qualified)? > On 16 Nov 2015, at 19:51, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > William Lupton <w...@cantab.net> wrote: &

[netmod] Modelling ports that can support multiple physical layer standards

All, We would much appreciate comments and suggestions on the question posed below. Thanks, William Lupton (Software Architect, Broadband Forum) In the Broadband Forum we need to model a port that can support several physical layer standards, but only one at a time

Re: [netmod] Modelling ports that can support multiple physical layer standards

ks! I'll take a look at those drafts. Would this approach allow green and red config to exist simultaneously on an interface? I think we'd want to be able to do that. Perhaps the choice approach might be used only in the state tree? > Thanks, > Rob > > On 11/11/2015 09:28, Will

[netmod] derived-from() and derived-from-or-self() arguments

Hi, I'm sure there's an obvious reason for this, but could someone explain why these functions need a separate module-name argument rather than just using that module's prefix on the identity-name argument? For example, I saw derived-from(x, "ex-module", "foo") in a recent message but (assuming

Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container

out the document. > > > > Would it be correct to write "not a non-presence-container"? > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > From: William Lupton > > > Se

[netmod] not a non-presence container

at the term warrants a mention in section 7.5.1. Comments? Thanks, William Lupton ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod