[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG Author : Ladislav Lhotka

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Hi, Anees Shaikh wrote: > hi -- some additional comments inline. I think that the revisit on some of > the operator requirements is primarily due to some proposed solution's > inability to address them. > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Hi, comments inline. Benoit Claise writes: > Dear all, > > The YANG coordination team > has > spent some time reading and gathering input on the requirements and > proposed solutions in

Re: [netmod] Y26 again, sorry

Randy Presuhn writes: > Hi - > >> From: Andy Bierman >> Sent: Sep 9, 2015 12:10 PM >> To: Ladislav Lhotka >> Cc: Robert Wilton , Randy Presuhn , "netmod@ietf.org" >> Subject: Re: [netmod] Y26 again, sorry > ... >> I don't think it really addresses the design pattern

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Hi, Benoit Claise wrote: > 2. The requirements. > If there are still clarifications needed around the requirements in > draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 section 4 4.1. Applied configuration as part of operational state Already in the title, this requirement mandates the

Re: [netmod] data tree

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:28:10AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Andy argued that the proposed new definition of data tree looks like it > > is a big tree containing everything, so here is another try, > > improvements are welcome: > > >

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

Jürgen, On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:38:35PM -0400, Nadeau Thomas wrote: I wanted to set things up for the interim meeting tomorrow. To frame the meeting, we want to achieve two main goals: 1) close on requirements around a requirement to define a structure for IETF models and

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, A nit on your mail: On September 10, 2015 4:40:39 AM Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, The YANG coordination team has spent some time reading and gathering input on the requirements and

Re: [netmod] posted: draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00

Hi Martin, On 10/09/2015 12:02, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Kent, I've a few comments on draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00: 1) Having a related-state statement seems to be a good solution for binding oper nodes to config nodes that are not directly

Re: [netmod] posted: draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00

Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Kent, > > I've a few comments on draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00: > > 1) Having a related-state statement seems to be a good solution for > binding oper nodes to config nodes that are not directly related in > the data tree. > > But I note that the

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

The desire from the co-chairs and AD anyways, is that we do not start a requirements draft as a result of today’s meeting (and mailing list confirmation of the outcome). As Kent mentioned earlier in this thread, to document this list of detailed requirements on the mailing list. The

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Lou, Speaking as an embedded device developer, I think the point here is that up until today there are not very many systems that specifically show the applied config in exactly the same "syntax" as used for providing the intended config. Yes, the applied config can be implied from the output

Re: [netmod] posted: draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00

Hi Kent, I've a few comments on draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00: 1) Having a related-state statement seems to be a good solution for binding oper nodes to config nodes that are not directly related in the data tree. But I note that the binding is attached to the config node. I had

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Ladislav Lhotka writes: >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 12:55, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG >> 1.0 module. >> >> But should it also be ok for a 1.0 module to import a 1.1 module? > > I think

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 12:55, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I think we agreed that is

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2015, at 12:55, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG > > 1.0 module. > > > > But should it also be ok for a 1.0 module to import a 1.1 module? >

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 12:55, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG > 1.0 module. > > But should it also be ok for a 1.0 module to import a 1.1 module? I think it should be illegal for a 1.0 module to import

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

This is a good point. This is as yet, undefined. We should explicitly specify this. —Tom > On Sep 9, 2015:9:01 PM, at 9:01 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > This email and the one from Benoit do not mention any sort of problem scope. > IMO it would be

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 12:55, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG >>> 1.0 module.

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

> On Sep 10, 2015:2:32 AM, at 2:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > Yes, in my view, section 4.5 goes a bit too far in making a certain > solution part of the requirement. > > The solutions that have been written up have different properties in >

[netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Hi, I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG 1.0 module. But should it also be ok for a 1.0 module to import a 1.1 module? If we make this illegal, we might run into problems. For example, ietf-ip imports ietf-interfaces. Suppose we update ietf-interfaces and the

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

On 9/10/15, 5:19 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >If the goal of this meeting is to agree on requirements, wouldn't it >help if we had them summarized in one place? Yes, we must have a list of requirements that everyone agrees to. We will subsequently put it into an email to

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m54c7bcbed84a08dc78fba128d500f8c0 On 9/10/2015 11:01 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > I got this, but there is no url to the webex there. Can you send the > url? > > > > /martin > > > Nadeau Thomas wrote: > NETMOD Working

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m66838a52ebff4cf2879dff9b01f30f44 > On Sep 10, 2015:11:01 AM, at 11:01 AM, Martin Bjorklund > wrote: > > Hi, > > I got this, but there is no url to the webex there. Can you send the > url? > > > > /martin > > > Nadeau Thomas

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, I want to pick up on this very specific point. I think Lou’s mails imply a similar position, but I want to be clear. On September 10, 2015 at 04:40:30, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: > > A common architecture includes a central configuration data > store that is being

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Einar, On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) wrote: > Lou, > > Speaking as an embedded device developer, I think the point here is > that up until today there are not very many systems that specifically > show the applied config in exactly the same "syntax" as used for > providing

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Hi Lou, On 10/09/2015 14:45, Lou Berger wrote: Tom, On 9/10/2015 8:52 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: The desire from the co-chairs and AD anyways, is that we do not start a requirements draft as a result of today’s meeting (and mailing list confirmation of the outcome). As Kent mentioned

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

Hi, I got this, but there is no url to the webex there. Can you send the url? /martin Nadeau Thomas wrote: > >>> NETMOD Working Group invites you to join this WebEx meeting. > >>> > >>> NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig > >>> Thursday, September 10, 2015 > >>>

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Typo: - this is a duplicate of # 3-a + this is a duplicate of # 4-a Kent On 9/10/15, 10:46 AM, "Kent Watsen" wrote: >[As co-chair] > >To facilitate the meeting, following is a straw man list of requirements >based on what I've read. Let's focus on refining this list

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Hi Anees, I was hoping this was going to come up on the call, but since it didn't... > hi -- some additional comments inline. I think that the revisit on some of > the operator requirements is primarily due to some proposed solution's > inability to address them. Can you elaborate on this?

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) > wrote: > > Now, think about configuration parameters that have applied configuration > located in more than one place. Let’s say you change the IP address of an > interface, it is likely that this configuration will

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > >> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) > > wrote: >> >> Now, think about configuration parameters that have applied configuration >>

Re: [netmod] Y26 again, sorry

Hi - >From: Ladislav Lhotka >Sent: Sep 10, 2015 2:02 AM >To: Randy Presuhn , netmod@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [netmod] Y26 again, sorry > >Randy Presuhn writes: > >> Hi - >> >>> From: Andy Bierman >>> Sent: Sep 9, 2015

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, I think Rob and others have already addressed the first issue raised in the comments from your group. For the second point, your mail says that the OpenConfig opstate draft says: * "The proposal does not allow items that are not configured, configured but not present, or system

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Inline: > On Sep 10, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Hi, > > comments inline. > > Benoit Claise writes: > >> Dear all, >> >> The YANG coordination team >> >> has

[netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements

This is an official NETMOD working group call for consensus around the requirements referenced below and discussed in detail at the interim meeting held Thursday, September 10, 2015. At that meeting, the chairs went over each requirement in detail and called for any objections to each

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Yes, in my view, section 4.5 goes a bit too far in making a certain solution part of the requirement. The solutions that have been written up have different properties in terms of data modeling impact, device implementation impact, NMS implementation impact and backwards compatibility impact.