Re: [netmod] reference statement examples in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18

Juergen writes: > I think it was common practice to write > > reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; > > instead of just > > reference "RFC 6991"; Agreed, I always do. > that is to include the RFC title (this can be especially useful with > longer lists of references and less

Re: [netmod] ACL draft issues found during shepherd writeup

Hi Mahesh, Please search for below (6 instances) Thanks, Kent // shepherd On 2/17/18, 8:26 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" > wrote: Kent, Thanks for a detailed review. See inline. On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > Rob, > > I think we're going in circles here. We have one camp that wants to replace > the current module with pre 09 and is unwilling to discuss compromise, and > another camp that wants 08 published as is and has been waiting for the

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

Kent, > On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Hi Clyde, > > Looking at your diff, I see that you aligned the Usage Example text and > artwork by making the artwork use the IP address from the text, but you > should've instead used the hostname in both

[netmod] feedback draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags -> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags

introduction / abstract should capture the problem module tags are attempting to solve succinctly Robert Wilton's criticism of the approach is well taken; the use of tags as regular configuration (his approach) vs the treatment of tags as exceptions (how we understand them as proposed). and seems

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

This completes the 2 week poll on making draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02 a working group document. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02 This document was most recently discussed at IETF 100. Response has been generally favorable and enthusiasic with some

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

Hi Clyde, Looking at your diff, I see that you aligned the Usage Example text and artwork by making the artwork use the IP address from the text, but you should've instead used the hostname in both locations. Please see section 3.6 here: https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/checklist. Also, I

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Rob,     My/our proposal doesn't seem to help unblock the current impasse,  as such I'll drop it and move on. Thanks, Lou On 2/23/2018 9:52 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lou, As per my public emails on this WG alias, and also private emails, you must know that both Martin, I, and others

Re: [netmod] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-21

> Security Comments > > * I think almost all writable data nodes here are sensitive, because a network > attacker's first move is to block any logging on the host, and many of the data > nodes here can be used for this purpose. > > [clw1]

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Robert Wilton writes: > Hi Lou, > > I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in > pre-09. If the choice is between pre-09 and Lou's new proposal, then I strongly prefer pre-09. That said, I must also add that I am still not happy with pre-09: I believe

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Hi Lou, As per my public emails on this WG alias, and also private emails, you must know that both Martin, I, and others have been trying (for many weeks) to reach a compromise. I don't think that it is that I am unwilling to compromise, but more that I perceive that a different compromise

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Rob, I think we're going in circles here. We have one camp that wants to replace the current module with pre 09 and is unwilling to discuss compromise, and another camp that wants 08 published as is and has been waiting for the working group and authors to submit aversion to the IESG for

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Hi Lou, I also don't agree that this is a rewrite of the draft.  My view is that it is really just an obvious simplification of the YANG module given the YLbis work. For the use-schema version, the -08 version splits the *same* YANG library information into two separate places depending on

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Martin, On 2/23/2018 7:55 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Lou Berger wrote: Martin/Rob,     Back when the topic was raised for the first time publicly (Yokahama) and discussed in the WG [1] *any* solution would have been workable.  At this point > 2 years later, do you

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Hi, Lou Berger wrote: > Martin/Rob, > >     Back when the topic was raised for the first time publicly > (Yokahama) and discussed in the WG [1] *any* solution would have been > workable.  At this point > 2 years later, do you really think it is > reasonable to do a rewrite of

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Martin/Rob,     Back when the topic was raised for the first time publicly (Yokahama) and discussed in the WG [1] *any* solution would have been workable.  At this point > 2 years later, do you really think it is reasonable to do a rewrite of the solution ?  Are you really not willing to

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Lou, > > I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in > pre-09. I agree. Servers that are NMDA-compliant, or implements YANG Library bis will have to present schemas in two different structures, depending on where the schema