Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > I think itt is not realistic to say that datastores are optional. > > e.g. leaf: If there is a standard way to enable/disable config > then individual "enabled" leafs are redundant. However XPath (must/when) > has no way to

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

On 01/09/2017 11:32 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Alex Campbell > > wrote: > > I don't see how a "when" statement modified by a deviation is any > more complicated to implement than a "when"

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Alex Campbell wrote: > I don't see how a "when" statement modified by a deviation is any more > complicated to implement than a "when" statement outside of a deviation - > presuming that augments and deviations are processed before

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

I don't see how a "when" statement modified by a deviation is any more complicated to implement than a "when" statement outside of a deviation - presuming that augments and deviations are processed before "when" statements. Alex From: Andy Bierman

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

Hi, This is not allowed because it is too complicated to implement. Changing the schema tree based on values of instances within the schema tree is full of complications. Note that when-stmt used where allowed enables or disables the schema tree without changing it. This is hard enough to

[netmod] "when" statement deviation

Hi, I have a module that adds some configuration to interfaces (the specific feature being configured isn't important here, so I'll just call it "feature"). I want to implement this module, but the device I'm working on only supports the feature on some kinds of interfaces. So I want to add

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > I am more concerned about use cases that are not known so far, and so I > am against standardizing this (or any other)

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > I am more concerned about use cases that are not known so far, and so I am > against standardizing this (or any other) workflow as the only one supported > by NETCONF/RESTCONF and YANG. I believe both the protocols and YANG

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

> On 9 Jan 2017, at 19:37, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 9 Jan 2017, at 13:38, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > > > > > On January 9, 2017 7:25:24 AM Ladislav Lhotka

Re: [netmod] Tacacs and YANG

> On Jan 9, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Balazs Lengyel > wrote: > > Hello, > > We already have a radius model part in ietf-system; but are there any plans > to develop a TACACS+ model for YANG? > > How widely is TACACS+ used for remote authorization/accounting ? As an >

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

> On 9 Jan 2017, at 13:38, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > On January 9, 2017 7:25:24 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> The current document involves quite a lot of hand-waving, and that's why I >> was also reluctant to accept it as a WG standard-track deliverable.

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On January 9, 2017 7:25:24 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: The current document involves quite a lot of hand-waving, and that's why I was also reluctant to accept it as a WG standard-track deliverable. IMO I think we should do and document the work and then, once the is general

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

> On 6 Jan 2017, at 20:57, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > I don't think it is duplicate work. One is as I understand the architecture > and concept document you were asking for > and