Re: [netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:22, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > > The action I am trying to tease out of this thread is how do we take > action > going forward? There are many who are saying (and doing) what you say below; > however, This should IMO be OK. One thing that

Re: [netmod] module update rules

> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 11:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Dec

Re: [netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

> On Dec 22, 2015:10:36 AM, at 10:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:22, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> >> The action I am trying to tease out of this thread is how do we take >> action >> going forward? There are many who

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-05: terminal logging vs session logging

Jason, We are about to publish draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-06 which separates terminal logging from session logging. We appreciate your feedback. Thanks, Clyde From: netmod > on behalf of "Sterne, Jason (Jason)"

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06.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 : SYSLOG YANG model Author : Clyde Wildes Filename:

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Gert, > > On 21/12/2015 20:17, Gert Grammel wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > Seems we are pretty close with our understanding, so snipping the only > discussion point left, with further comments: > > Gert > > > > >

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

On 12/21/15, 2:21 PM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > >> On 21 Dec 2015, at 19:02, Juergen Schoenwaelder >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

[As a contributor] Hi Robert, I want to go back to Jason’s original questions. I think we’re aligned on this, but please check my answers below. Quoting Jason’s original text now: >Is there some intention in the opstate requirements to add some sort >of all-or-nothing behavior to

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

Hi Gert, On 21/12/2015 20:17, Gert Grammel wrote: Hi Rob, Seems we are pretty close with our understanding, so snipping the only discussion point left, with further comments: Gert The real problem is what you called in another email 'hybrid' or cheating-synchronous

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

HI Andy, On 22/12/2015 20:37, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi Gert, On 21/12/2015 20:17, Gert Grammel wrote: Hi Rob, Seems we are pretty close with our

Re: [netmod] module update rules

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 11:06, Juergen

Re: [netmod] module update rules

> On Dec 22, 2015:10:53 AM, at 10:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>>

[netmod] Draft clemm netmod mount draft

In the controller-network data model , is the interfaces module imported for a specific reason ? Sent from Outlook Mobile ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Jürgen, On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: I hope that nobody disagrees that the operational state design and how to structure the models are the two blocking factors to publish YANG models. If you disagree or don't see this, let me know, I should communicate

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

> On Dec 22, 2015:6:38 AM, at 6:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Jürgen, >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: >> >>> I hope that nobody disagrees that the operational state design and how >>> to structure the models are the two blocking factors to

Re: [netmod] module update rules

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 2015:10:53 AM, at 10:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >>> On 22 Dec 2015,

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Lada, > > On 12/22/15, 7:25 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > > >Hi Acee, > > > >> On 22 Dec 2015, at 13:03, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >> > >> Jurgen, Lada, > >> > >> On 12/22/15, 6:45

Re: [netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

> On 22 Dec 2015, at 14:06, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > > [moving the thread to its own discussion.] > >> This is a blocking factor that people are not considering: The RFC >> process the >> IETF has in place is not suitable for rapid/modern/canonical model >>

Re: [netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > [moving the thread to its own discussion.] > > > This is a blocking factor that people are not considering: The RFC > process the > > IETF has in place is not suitable for rapid/modern/canonical model >

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-05: minor editorial comments

Jason, We are about to publish draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06 which incorporates your feedback below. Thanks, Clyde From: netmod > on behalf of "Sterne, Jason (Jason)"