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

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 15:26, Rob Shakir wrote: > > On 15 October 2015 at 15:13:38, Acee Lindem (acee) (a...@cisco.com) wrote: >> >> Do we really see associating the same interface with different >> routing-instances for IPv4 and IPv6? I can seem to remember the use case >> and it

Re: [netmod] open-source yang-explorer application

Great. Thanks Pravin. Regards, Benoit Hi All, As demonstrated in IETE 93 hackthon and Bits & Byte Session, Yang Explorer (beta) a open source web based yang browser and RPC builder/Tester(w/ncclient) is now available on github. https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/yang-explorer Please let me

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Andy Bierman wrote: [...] > But the "when-stmt" never causes an error for application within > a datastore. > > The text in sec. 8 does not apply because the when-stmt is not > on any object in the RPC being processed. > > Only this text applies: > >The "when"

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: > > [...] > > > But the "when-stmt" never causes an error for application within > > a datastore. > > > > The text in sec. 8 does not apply because the when-stmt is not > > on

[netmod] open-source yang-explorer application

Hi All, As demonstrated in IETE 93 hackthon and Bits & Byte Session, Yang Explorer (beta) a open source web based yang browser and RPC builder/Tester(w/ncclient) is now available on github. https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/yang-explorer Please let me know if you have any question/comments

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 15:07, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:33, Andy Bierman

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:33, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > IMO we do not need lots of rules for when-stmt. > > They are harder to enforce than just implementing the auto-deletion. > > > >

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 15:07, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:33, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > IMO we do not need lots of rules for when-stmt. > >

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Martin Bjorklund writes: > Andy Bierman wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I updated the YANG guidelines draft. > > I have a couple of comments. > > -- > > Section 5.14 says: > > The "choice" statement is allowed to be directly present within a

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I updated the YANG guidelines draft. > > > > I have a couple of comments. > > > > -- > > > > Section 5.14 says: > > > >

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Andy Bierman je 20.10.2015 ob 3:41 napisal: Hi, I updated the YANG guidelines draft. All open issues have been addressed in this version. https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues You missed this: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg13593.html Applies to both YANG

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Martin Bjorklund writes: >> >>> Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I updated the YANG guidelines draft. >>> >>> I have a couple of

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

Hello Martin, I would want to codify this. My earlier proposal was: - when MUST NOT be dependent on a data node controlled by a when or choice statement Notice the strong MUST NOT statement. This would simplify life greatly. regards Balazs On 2015-10-20 10:09, Martin Bjorklund wrote: I have

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:33, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > IMO we do not need lots of rules for when-stmt. > They are harder to enforce than just implementing the auto-deletion. > > Note that auto-deletion also applies to nodes already in candidate or running. > It is

Re: [netmod] Order of evaluation for when?

I would love to get rid of the autodelete feature. It really complicates things. regards Balazs On 2015-10-18 16:43, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 18 Oct 2015, at 11:52, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 06:03:57PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Martin Bjorklund writes: > >> > >>> Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I updated

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> > >>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >

Re: [netmod] 6020bis more than one revision of a module

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:28:20PM -0400, David Reid wrote: > > > > Why does yang 1.1 add the new requirement that a server MUST NOT implement > > more than 1 revision? If there is an e-mail thread, you can point me at that > >

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> >>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Martin Bjorklund writes: >

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 10:13, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> >>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On 21 Oct 2015, at 09:17, Martin Bjorklund