This confirms the completion of this period.
I think we can conclude the following:
The Question of whether better guidance for usage can be applied was raised and
discussed. Robert Wilton proposed some text which seems both reasonable and
which does not change the substance of the draft.
The
Something like the text below addresses the question of guidance. I think we
get a better draft if we close off this discussion on the list.
I think the question about where the tags reside generally is settled.
Thanks
joel
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 09:26, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The
>
>
>> I do not think the tail end of a WGLC is an appropriate time or place to
>> start wondering out loud about whether it would be a good to have. I admit
>> to being confused by this since I believe you were actively participating
>> WRT this work when it had the yang library
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
+1 Christian
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 16, 2018, at 10:23, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:57 PM Christian Hopps wrote:
>> So I would now have a new tags server to store tags associated with the
>> modules for each of my actual servers in my network?
>>
>> This seems
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:57 PM Christian Hopps wrote:
> So I would now have a new tags server to store tags associated with the
> modules for each of my actual servers in my network?
>
> This seems a bit convoluted to me, and I haven’t heard anyone say what the
> problem is with the servers
So I would now have a new tags server to store tags associated with the modules
for each of my actual servers in my network?
This seems a bit convoluted to me, and I haven’t heard anyone say what the
problem is with the servers storing the tags associated with their modules,
there are obvious
> 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 needs to come from the
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 to
Hi,
I think there are some legitimate issues that should be addressed for this
work to go forward
wrt/ how it will be used.
1) IANA registry: is this really needed at all? Doesn't the module-tag
extension
make the registry unnecessary?
2) Standard solution: will there be one or is the intent to
> 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 to modules, not to the
>
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 to modules, not to
the config, or config paths.
Routers (the server) certainly don't use those and
Do you have similar objections over comments in CLI config files? Routers (the
server) certainly don't use those and clients write them and read them -- yet
they are stored on the server. Perhaps if you thought of there being more than
just one client possible this might all make more sense?
Hi Chris,
On 13/11/2018 21:05, Christian Hopps 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.
Clients should also be
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
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 15:36, Alex Campbell wrote:
>
> Perhaps my opinion also carries less weight, as someone who's only on the
> mailing list and didn't actually attend the IETF meeting.
>
So, the reason we take the discussion back to the list is precisely to insure
that we capture the
Hi,
I was not at the IETF meeting unfortunately.
I see that the technical issues raised in the WGLC have been fixed, which is
good.
However I still have reservations about the utility of the proposed standard.
It seems to me like a solution in search of a problem, and I can't understand
why
17 matches
Mail list logo
