Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Lada, Y34 is closed and I have not seen any new argument here that indicates we made a major mistake with the resolution of Y34. As such, Y34 remains closed. If you want to discuss new ideas to relocate or "symlink" data models, please do so in a separate thread. (And no, we do not accept new iss

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-04.txt Implementations

2015-07-20 Thread Carl Moberg (camoberg)
Clyde, Excellent, thanks! > On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) wrote: > > Carl, > > Thanks for your question in the Netmod meeting during the review of the > ietf-syslog model. > > Regarding the model implementation: the model has been implemented in ODL and > internally

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-04.txt Implementations

2015-07-20 Thread Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
Carl, Thanks for your question in the Netmod meeting during the review of the ietf-syslog model. Regarding the model implementation: the model has been implemented in ODL and internally in Cisco's NXOS. Thanks, Clyde ___ netmod mailing list netmod@

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 20 Jul 2015, at 19:29, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:00, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman wro

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Andy Bierman
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:00, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Can you explain why we need 2

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:00, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls? > > (The original and a synonym?) The whole point of > > any

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Andy Bierman
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls? > > (The original and a synonym?) The whole point of > > anydata is that it does not have XML cruft in it. > > Yes, I und

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls? > (The original and a synonym?) The whole point of > anydata is that it does not have XML cruft in it. Yes, I understand this was your main priority. For implementors using off-the-shelf

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls? (The original and a synonym?) The whole point of anydata is that it does not have XML cruft in it. I also don't get the value of a single top-level node called 'device' that every YANG model on the planet is supposed to augment. Can you explain w

Re: [netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:45, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Hi, > > after listening to the presentation of > draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering > whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful. > > The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but the

[netmod] Y34

2015-07-20 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
Hi, after listening to the presentation of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful. The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but their tree in fact is +--rw device +--rw info |