Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions

Andy Bierman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:19:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > Conformance to YANG for the extension: NONE This includes syntax and > > > semantics. It m

Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:19:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Conformance to YANG for the extension: NONE This includes syntax and > > semantics. It makes no sense at all (Lada is right

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Kent, I don't see the need for defining synchronous/asynchronous config servers. The new definitions look good. Later in the discussion there was a common sentiment that the requirement for synchronous operations contained some crisp wording we could use here too. I particularly liked the menti

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (except 9. built-in types)

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:37:49PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > * p12/p13 > > > > We import 7 terms from RFC 6241. Would it make sense to copy the > > necessary text in order to avoid a too strict binding to RFC 6241? > > In particular, 'client' and 'server' means NETCONF client and

Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:19:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Conformance to YANG for the extension: NONE This includes syntax and > semantics. It makes no sense at all (Lada is right) to say the > extension semantics apply. They only apply if the tool supports the > extension. Conformance t

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:03:33PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > These terms were edited on today's call, resulting in the following text: > > Synchronous configuration operation - A configuration request to update > the running configuration of a server that is applied synchronously with >

Re: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

Hi Lada, I looked at this and I like this simple association. I think we should go with this - there is one point for discussion. All, In routing design team discussions we had augmented “if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4” and “if:interface/if:interface/ip:ipv6” so an interface could be mapped

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Hi, Show me the text that says an anyxml passes the constraints of the hidden data models through to the RPC processing. The error for false-when only applies to parameters specified in the RPC. The processing of the rpc-stmt does not have any when-stmts that need to be checked. The config data

[netmod] FW: New YANG PubSub drafts for NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP/2

Forwarding to NETMOD as people there might be interested as well (for those subscribed to both mailers, apologies for the spam...) From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm (alex) Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 1:57 PM To: netc...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Netcon

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (section 9. built-in types)

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Hi, > > here is the review of section 9 or draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07; I > have finish now a complete review of the document. The most important > bug I spotted is likely that section 9.4.6 is empty. Ha! It seems to have been empty since -01... > /js > > *

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (except 9. built-in types)

Hi, Thanks for this detailed review, it is much appreciated! Comments inline. Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Hi, > > I have read through draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (except section 9. > Built-In Types). Overall, the document is in a good shape. I spotted a > number of editorial issues or a

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #3: Is there a requirement for asynchronous systems to provide a blocking config update?

Again, with better formatting for the list: 3. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations (see terms) A. A server may only support synchronous configuration operations, or may only support asynchronous configuration operations, or

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #3: Is there a requirement for asynchronous systems to provide a blocking config update?

Requirement #3 was discussed on today's call. We agreed to remove the words "distributed" and "transactional" and to reword it in terms of "configuration operations". The resulting text follows: 3. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations (see terms)

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

These terms were edited on today's call, resulting in the following text: Synchronous configuration operation - A configuration request to update the running configuration of a server that is applied synchronously with respect to the client request. The server MUST fully attempt to ap

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tighter definition of"applied configuration"

These terms were edited on today's call, resulting in the following: * intended configuration - this data represents the configuration state that the network operator intends the system to be in, and that has been accepted by the system as valid configuration. * appli

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Andy Bierman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > You are incorrect. > > > > > > Within the PAYLOAD (as this section describes), there is no when-stmt > > > for data nodes within the datastore. Look at the YANG for ed

Re: [netmod] The when-choice loop

Limiting when to augment doesn't really solve the issues, as you can augment in all the strange constructs instead of defining them locally. My ideas would be: - when MUST NOT be dependent on a data node controlled by another when or choice statement - choice SHOULD NOT be contained under a ch

Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container

How about “closest ancestor node in the schema tree (excluding non-presence containers)”? Jonathan From: Martin Bjorklund Sent: 15 October 2015 13:39 To: jonat...@hansfords.net Cc: w...@cantab.net;netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container Jonathan Hansford wrote: >

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Hello, I had the same interpretation as Martin. The when could be on the config database model. Not just on the when defined in a definition of an rpc or action. regards Balazs On 2015-10-15 17:02, Andy Bierman wrote:

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

Webex hung up on us again. Please rejoin using the same URL. —Tom > On Oct 15, 2015:10:20 AM, at 10:20 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > Some (including me) were having issues with “computer audio”. If you > are, call into meeting using the dial info. > > >> On Oct 15,

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You are incorrect. > > > > Within the PAYLOAD (as this section describes), there is no when-stmt > > for data nodes within the datastore. Look at the YANG for edit-config. > > There are no when-stmts

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Rob, >From a client perspective a server has three states: 1. intended != applied 2. Funny-state 3. Intended == applied Irrespective of synchronous or asynchronous processing in the server, the third state MUST be reported to the client. Else (from a client perspective) the server sta

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

Some (including me) were having issues with “computer audio”. If you are, call into meeting using the dial info. > On Oct 15, 2015:10:18 AM, at 10:18 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > https://ietf.webex.com/meet/netmod >

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

https://ietf.webex.com/meet/netmod > On

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

I just unlocked it. Audio should work now. > On Oct 15, 2015:10:16 AM, at 10:16 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > This one says the meeting is locked and one cannot join. > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Nadeau Thomas > > wrote: >> >> >> Apol

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

I joined one where I am the only person in the call ☺ Can someone re-send? Thanks and Regards, Dan From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:16 PM To: Nadeau Thomas Cc: netmod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW we

[netmod] webex accidentally cancelled meeting - looking to restart webex now...

webex accidentally cancelled meeting - looking to restart webex now... Kent ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

Apologies but the WebEx unexpectedly terminated. I’ve started a new one here: https://ietf.webex.com/meet/netmod Please join there if you were on the call or want to join the interim meeting. —Tom ___ netmod mailing

Re: [netmod] The when-choice loop

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 15:17, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > Hello Lada, > So can we start gathering support for limiting when/choice to the simple > cases by one of the 3 methods: > 1) prohibit them (backward incompatible) I would personally restrict the use of "when" only as a substatement of "aug

[netmod] WebEx invitation

I seem to be missing the WebEx invitation for the Interim meeting for today. Would someone care to forward. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #5: Support for situations when structure of intended configuration is not the same as applied

Hi Carl, I understand your concern, but isn't it up to the server to decide the response it provides in that case? Already I think the server needs to scatter/gather responses from the operational components in the system and stitch together a result. In this case, the stitching may fail and he

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #5: Support for situations when structure of intended configuration is not the same as applied

Hi Carl, On 15/10/2015 14:05, Carl Moberg (camoberg) wrote: Maybe we’re coming down to a definition of “requirement” here. But the issue I raised can be summarized as follows: “”” The assumption of a 1:1 mapping ignores situations where a change to an intended configuration leaf value may r

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Thanks Gert. I've incorporated these suggestions into my notes for today's interim meeting. From: Gert Grammel mailto:ggram...@juniper.net>> Date: Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:17 AM To: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org

Re: [netmod] The when-choice loop

Hello Lada, So can we start gathering support for limiting when/choice to the simple cases by one of the 3 methods: 1) prohibit them (backward incompatible) 2) create a guideline not to use them in 6087, (easy to do, better then nothing, but does not protect the application) 3) declaring them a

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #5: Support for situations when structure of intended configuration is not the same as applied

Maybe we’re coming down to a definition of “requirement” here. But the issue I raised can be summarized as follows: “”” The assumption of a 1:1 mapping ignores situations where a change to an intended configuration leaf value may result in several instances of applied configuration leaf value

Re: [netmod] The when-choice loop

Hi Balazs, one lesson taken from early XML schema languages (DTD) was that modifying the validated document during validation easily leads to nasty race conditions. That's why RELAX NG avoids changing the XML infoset like plague. I've already got tired reiterating (and providing examples) that

Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container

Jonathan Hansford wrote: > If that misinterpretation has already happened for (at least) one > individual, would it be worth adding the clarification and remove the > ambiguity? Sure. The words "not a non-presence container" occurs a couple of times throughout the document. Would it be correct

Re: [netmod] The when-choice loop

Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > In RFC6020bis we write: > "There MUST NOT be any circular dependencies in these "when" > expressions." > How about a circular when-choice loop? Good catch. choice/case can (more or less) be seen as a syntactic sugar for a special form a when expressions; or rathe

[netmod] The when-choice loop

Hello, In RFC6020bis we write: "There MUST NOT be any circular dependencies in these "when" expressions." How about a circular when-choice loop? leaf a1 { type boolean; when not(../a2); } choice c2 { default case2; case case1

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > You are incorrect. > > Within the PAYLOAD (as this section describes), there is no when-stmt > for data nodes within the datastore. Look at the YANG for edit-config. > There are no when-stmts for "interface" in "edit-config". Andy, there is some confusion here. T

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Hi, You are incorrect. Within the PAYLOAD (as this section describes), there is no when-stmt for data nodes within the datastore. Look at the YANG for edit-config. There are no when-stmts for "interface" in "edit-config". So explain which constraint in the payload is being violated? Andy On

Re: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

Hi Acee, I made the necessary changes in ietf-routing, please see the GitHub repo: https://github.com/netmod-wg/routing-cfg A new leaf "rt:routing-instance" was augmented into interface configuration, and "rt:interfaces" container in configuration is gone. Below is the complete new tree. Will

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Kent, Rob, Comparing the cases, the definition of the asynchronous case doesn’t look complete. The way it stands for the synchronous operation, the client knows that it's intended config was good AND it has been effected to the server. In the Asynchronous case, the client only knows that the in

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tighter definition of"applied configuration"

Hi Jonathan, Yes, of course, in the general case your statement is completely true. I think that my premise would still hold if either: - there is coordination of the intended configuration between multiple NMS - responsibility for parts of the configuration is split between multiple NMS and

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

On 2015-10-14 23:06, Andy Bierman wrote: Our server applies all the edits first, when checks all the when-stmts that might have changed value. Nodes that have already existed in the datastore may get pruned, not just the new nodes. Hello Andy, We definitely need a new section/paragraph in RFC

Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container

If that misinterpretation has already happened for (at least) one individual, would it be worth adding the clarification and remove the ambiguity? Jonathan From: William Lupton Sent: 14 October 2015 23:28 To: Martin Bjorklund Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] not a non-presence contain

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tighter definition of"applied configuration"

The NMS only knows the intended config if it is the only NMS capable of changing that device’s config. That may not always be the case. Jonathan From: Robert Wilton Sent: 14 October 2015 22:28 To: Kent Watsen;Andy Bierman Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #4: Provide a tig

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

See below, Balazs On 2015-10-14 23:06, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02 (until 2015-10-22)

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 09:03, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:01:13PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On 13 Oct 2015, at 13:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [netmod] nested choices

> On 14 Oct 2015, at 20:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> my action item from yesterday's interim was to check whether some updates to >> 6020bis are needed in order to address the corner cases presented by Balazs: >> >> - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/m

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02 (until 2015-10-22)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:01:13PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> > On 13 Oct 2015, at 13:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:37:36PM +0

Re: [netmod] 6020bis - sec. 5.6.4 comments

> On 14 Oct 2015, at 19:28, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> regarding $subj: >> >> - What about extensions? Do modules defining them have to be >> implemented? That is, is "default-revision" true or false for such >> modules? > > The "default-revision" leaf