Robert Wilton writes:
> On 09/11/2017 15:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Robert Wilton writes:
...
> 3. Sec 2.1 Glossary of New Terms: "Schema" isn't actually defined
> anywhere (RFC 7950 doesn't define this). Should it be defined here?
> The
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> >
>> > So what is the difference between "schema tree" and "schema"? Or to
>> > put it differently, what is "all associated semantics" that you are
>> >
On 11/8/2017 9:26 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
5. Sec 3.2. paragraph 2, last sentence: "are possible and such needs" =>
"are possible, and as such, needs"
I actually don't understand neither this sentence nor what the point of
such exceptions could possibly be.
In the case of the example,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > So what is the difference between "schema tree" and "schema"? Or to
> > put it differently, what is "all associated semantics" that you are
> > adding to a "schema tree" to obtain a "schema"? RFC 7950 says:
> >
> >o
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:38:40PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>
>> > > > > 3. Sec 2.1 Glossary of New Terms: "Schema" isn't actually defined
>> > > > > anywhere (RFC 7950 doesn't define this). Should it be defined here?
On 09/11/2017 18:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:38:40PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
3. Sec 2.1 Glossary of New Terms: "Schema" isn't actually defined
anywhere (RFC 7950 doesn't define this). Should it be defined here?
The NMDA datastores draft had a similar
On 09/11/2017 17:44, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Ladislav Lhotka > wrote:
On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 08:34 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:38:40PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> > > > > 3. Sec 2.1 Glossary of New Terms: "Schema" isn't actually defined
> > > > > anywhere (RFC 7950 doesn't define this). Should it be defined here?
> > > > > The NMDA datastores draft had a similar issue and we choose to
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 08:34 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Robert Wilton writes:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> 2. Sec 1.
On 09/11/2017 15:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
2. Sec 1. Introduction, page 4, paragraph starting "2.
Implementation-time ...". This section states that it is a stable as
YANG library, and hence cannot change due to a server reboot. However,
YANG
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Robert Wilton writes:
>
> >>
> >>> 2. Sec 1. Introduction, page 4, paragraph starting "2.
> >>> Implementation-time ...". This section states that it is a stable as
> >>> YANG library, and hence cannot
Robert Wilton writes:
>>
>>> 2. Sec 1. Introduction, page 4, paragraph starting "2.
>>> Implementation-time ...". This section states that it is a stable as
>>> YANG library, and hence cannot change due to a server reboot. However,
>>> YANG library doesn't appear to have that
On 08/11/2017 13:26, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Rob,
thank you for the review, my replies are inline.
Robert Wilton writes:
Hi,
I have read this document and think that is almost ready for publication.
I have one general comment regarding the YANG module library (at
Hi Rob,
thank you for the review, my replies are inline.
Robert Wilton writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have read this document and think that is almost ready for publication.
>
> I have one general comment regarding the YANG module library (at the
> end), and a few nits, but otherwise
On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 15:03 -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
> I've reviewed this draft (-08), and I think it's ready for publication.
>
> A nit, the text:
>
> Page 4 item 3: "The mounted schema is defined by instance data that is
> part of the mounted data model."
So would it be better to say
I've reviewed this draft (-08), and I think it's ready for publication.
A nit, the text:
Page 4 item 3: "The mounted schema is defined by instance data that is
part of the mounted data model."
Seems pretty complex if all it's trying to say is "It is what it is".
Thanks,
Chris.
Kent Watsen
Hi Andy,
thanks for the comments, see inline.
Andy Bierman writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have read this draft a few times.
> I have not implemented the draft but it seems reasonably constrained.
>
> here are some comments.
>
> Sec 1: seems like a lot of background on YANG and then
Hi,
I have read this document and think that is almost ready for publication.
I have one general comment regarding the YANG module library (at the
end), and a few nits, but otherwise the draft looks good.
1. Sec 1. Introduction paragraph 2, "internal node". It wasn't
absolutely clear to me
jacobs-university.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 6:34 PM
> To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07
>
> Does 'Yes/support
Hi,
I have read this draft a few times.
I have not implemented the draft but it seems reasonably constrained.
here are some comments.
Sec 1: seems like a lot of background on YANG and then some explanation
of the solution. The problem statement is never really explained.
Some discussion of
Kent,
As other work I have authored depends on it, I have read the document and think
it's ready for publication.
Dean
> On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.
to:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 5:38 PM
> > To: netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07
> >
> > All,
> >
> > This starts a two-week working group last call on
Hi Xufeng,
I support publication of this document.
Thanks,
Acee
>>-Original Message-
>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
>> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 5:38 PM
>> To: netmod@ietf.org
>> Subject: [netmod] WG Last
Yes/support.
Thanks,
- Xufeng
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 5:38 PM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07
>
> All,
&
Yes/support!
Very important work with many other drafts depending on.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Oct 20, 2017, at 14:37, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.
>
> The working group last call ends on
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.
The working group last call ends on November 3.
Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
and believe it is ready for publication", are
26 matches
Mail list logo