Hi Amy,
On 27/03/2018 04:47, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
Hi all,
I also have a question/comment regarding this draft, maybe if it's discussed
already.
If there a model A, which I would like to use just part of model A in another
model B, what should I do?
The draft states that "This document allows
Hi Alex,
You are correct. This model does not define any VLAN based forwarding
by itself, that is entirely left to other models.
The options available today are:
IETF:
- Use this model in conjunction with IPv4/IPv6 YANG models for L3 routed
traffic.
- Use this model in conjunction
Hi,
For one thing, it should be ../a-list since a-list is not a child of foo.
Also - if foo is not configured and has no default value, then any must
expressions in foo are not evaluated because it is not part of the "accessible
tree". (I tested this in ConfD)
Apart from these issues, yes it
Hi all,
I'm pretty sure that this xpath (e.g. in a must statement) isn't correct:
(A) ../container-a/list-b[name=*]/some-leaf
and should just be this instead:
(B) ../container-a/list-b/some-leaf
Or is the * an allowable wildcard for a key value in a predicate ?
I
Hi,
Since the session management with Mounted devices, is not known to the client,
how will the client know how to configure NACM rules for the inner devices ?
Please provide an example use-case.
From the client perspective, all rules for a particular mounted device, will
the have the xpath
Hi Martin,
W.r.t on the main device, it will mean that for successful
for all the schema of mounted devices, the main device must be
upgraded to higher version first and must contain ALL the schema of all the
devices behind the main device.
This point may prove to be tricky as the whole
