Re: [netmod] input Interface match

Hi guys, I agree that we may want to consider other metadata items and also agree they will tend to be more implementation-specific. But rather than hold up this base ACL model for metadata why don't we treat metadata in either a follow up extension draft or leave them to vendor-specific

Re: [netmod] Use of schema mounts for common model

With regard to leafrefs trying to point into groupings, would instance-identifiers work for your use case? Yours, Joel On 4/29/16 12:17 PM, Tarek Saad (tsaad) wrote: Thanks Martin, please see inline.. On 2016-04-29, 6:29 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" >

Re: [netmod] Use of schema mounts for common model

Thanks Martin, please see inline.. On 2016-04-29, 6:29 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" > wrote: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" > wrote: Hi authors/WG, In draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, we are driving the definition for a generic TE YANG

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On 2016-04-29 17:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:32, Per Hedeland wrote: >> >> On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote: On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote: >> >> On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Apr 29,

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote: > > On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:28:34PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is

[netmod] netmod - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Lou Berger, a Chair of the netmod working group. - Working Group Name: NETCONF Data Modeling Language Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Lou Berger

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"? >> > > Yes, "type foo {}" has a restriction while

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"? > Yes, "type foo {}" has a restriction while "type foo;" does not have a restriction. OK, I think I see your point now that we have a case where there is a

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:41, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:36:55PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:36:55PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> The problem here is that enum statements

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:02, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> if we have >> >> typedef foo { >> type enumeration { >>enum one; >>enum two; >> } >> } >> >> typedef

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > if we have > > typedef foo { > type enumeration { > enum one; > enum two; > } > } > > typedef bar { > type foo; > } > > what is the set of values permitted for "bar"? Is it empty or the > same as for

[netmod] restricted enumeration

Hi, if we have typedef foo { type enumeration { enum one; enum two; } } typedef bar { type foo; } what is the set of values permitted for "bar"? Is it empty or the same as for "foo"? Lada -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

Re: [netmod] Use of schema mounts for common model

"Tarek Saad (tsaad)" wrote: > Hi authors/WG, > > In draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, we are driving the definition for a > generic TE YANG model that can/may be used (and extended when > necessary) for different data plane technologies (e.g. MPLS, OTN, WDM, > etc.). > Reviewing the

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

On 4/29/2016 11:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Right, I think it goes pretty much without saying, so this sentence is >IMO unnecessary. > Apparently, this was not clear to every reader and hence the proposal to add this sentence in order to make this explicit. This is a always a good

Re: [netmod] Multiple deviations with same target

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 11:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:18:15AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Andy Bierman writes: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < >>>

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:18:15AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Andy Bierman writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder