Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16

- Original Message - From: "Andy Bierman" Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:48 PM > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:58 AM, t.petch wrote: > > > Andy > > > > If an RFC is mentioned in a Description clause, should it also appear in > > the related

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

Oppose adoption As others have said, there is a lack of a problem to solve. When I ask users of a technology that uses #hashtags where they come from, how they come into being and similar elements of procedure, I never get an answer. #hashtags seem to be provided to allow a storm to gather on

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-00.txt

How do I know which datastore the data belongs to? Would it not make sense to carry that information inline? If we do not carry this information inline, how is that information supposed to be provided if for example this format is used to validate examples included in documentation? /js On Fri,

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-00.txt

Hello Jurgen, I will gladly add NMDA to the draft. However could you please be more specific. Which part of NMDA are you missing? Is it the example of yanglib that you would like updated? As the instance-data can be used to document and/or load    both config=true and false data it is IMHO

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt

Thank you, Tom. That's an interesting bit of history there. Of course, you would know, as I see you listed in the Acknowledgments section in RFC 6587. David Harrington's points are very compelling. The chairs want to get this draft to Benoit before he steps down. But looking at the draft

Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang

Yes, it may be a bug in ODL, but I also think that there is something wrong to use such a long relative path. In that case, the relative path is actually longer than the absolute path! That said, there is no guidance in rfc6087bis currently, so we may need to let it go this time. K. //

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16

Hi Tom, I know where you're going with this, and I agree, but as we're past AD-review, maybe this is a good candidate for guidelines-next? https://github.com/netmod-wg/guidelines-next/issues Kent // shepherd - Original Message - From: "Andy Bierman" Sent:

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:19 AM, t.petch wrote: > Oppose adoption > > As others have said, there is a lack of a problem to solve. > > Actually, I see eventual value in the tags themselves if: - each tag is defined with a YANG identity - there is standard filtering

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF. Title : A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration Authors : Clyde Wildes Kiran Koushik

Re: [netmod] Missing references

Henrik, Benoit My first e-mail was sloppily worded. What I meant was RFC in the Reference clause of a YANG module, since I think that those should be in the Reference section as well. I think that it should apply to the Description clause as well, but that might be more debatable i.e.

Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang

This may be. bug in OpenDaylight that is being tickled.  Ranga is chasing it a bit. On 09.02.18 10:20, Jan Lindblad wrote: > Eliot, > >> In order to compile the published YANG model with OpenDaylight Yangtools I >> had to make the following change ( diff published file vs. changed file is >>

Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang

Eliot, > In order to compile the published YANG model with OpenDaylight Yangtools I > had to make the following change ( diff published file vs. changed file is > below ): > > 583c583 > < path "../../../../../../acl/name"; > --- > > path

[netmod] LL review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04

Hi, here is my review of the rfc7895bis document: *** General comments - This revision is a significant improvement necessary for supporting NMDA. However, it is also flexible enough in that it allows for implementing the NMDA rules in an effective way but doesn't preclude