Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Benoit, Okay - we'll add the intended status to the milestones. Lou On 3/20/2017 7:09 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Lou, > > In all my WGs, we consistently documented the intended status in the > milestones, expressing the _intended _status at the time of the > charter discussion > > Regards,

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

Hi, Not sure I like the YANG module with all the datastore identities because it makes datastore discovery more complicated. I prefer the server advertise capabilities in the message. More importantly, all the existing NETCONF operations use a container with a choice in it to select the source

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Kent and Lada: I agree that we need some parameters in yang. I agree with version 1 of the revised datastores. In my proposal regarding I2RS Yang, I tried to start suggesting some parameters for control plane datastores, and ephemeral control plane datastores. In this I also suggest a

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

> I believe this is the wrong direction, even if we rewrite the module > in the revised datastores document and split it into multiple modules. > A simple list of implemented datastores is cheap. It is flexible. It > does not require explanations and rules how definitions must be split > into

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:28:53PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > But this logic is already broken for the datastores defined in the > > revised datastores document. It defines an identity for startup but > > not all systems implement startup. End of proof. > > Ha ha, yes professor. But recall

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

> But this logic is already broken for the datastores defined in the > revised datastores document. It defines an identity for startup but > not all systems implement startup. End of proof. Ha ha, yes professor. But recall this started as a discussion regarding what to do for the new dynamic

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:05:09PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Why are you mentioning identities here? Yes, the module defines > identities, but that is beside the point to what I'm saying. I'm > only discussing the module (e.g. ietf-i2rs-solution) showing up > in YANG Library and using the

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

>> It seems okay for more than one datastore to be represented by a single >> module. Presumably the set of them come together as a package (all or >> none), right? This could be a datastore-designer decision to make. >> >> For instance, I2RS talks about priority-ordered planes of glass, so

Re: [netmod] LL review of draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-03

Hi Acee, On 17/03/2017 17:18, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Rob, On 3/10/17, 9:46 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: Lada, Thanks for the comments, some further comments inline ...

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

"t.petch" writes: > - Original Message - > From: "Ladislav Lhotka" > To: "Robert Wilton" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:32 PM >> >> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton wrote: >> >

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Kent Watsen writes: > Hi Lada, > > I think some of what you're getting at is in these guidelines: > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01#section-5 > > But you're thinking about something more generalized? Most likely yes - what I have

Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Robert Wilton writes: > On 17/03/2017 15:08, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:11, Robert Wilton wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/03/2017 12:55, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi Rob, thank you for reading the draft. > On 17 Mar

[netmod] NETCONF/NETMOD charters and the revised-datastores draft

Dear all, The NETMOD chairs, the NETCONF chairs, and I had a call regarding draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores & charters. First of, we must stress that this piece of work is an essential building block in the world of data model-driven management. We also believe we have the right set of

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Lou, In all my WGs, we consistently documented the intended status in the milestones, expressing the _intended _status at the time of the charter discussion Regards, Benoit Juergen, Thank you for the input. I think your point highlights how the technical contents of a document drives

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

On 3/1/2017 9:40 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:56:12PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: Hi Lada, I understand your intention here, but I'm inclined to agree with others that it's better to stick with the term we're using in the documents. I'm open to the idea of changing

Re: [netmod] “case” shorthand

"Peter Kajsa -X (pkajsa - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" wrote: > Hi, > > RFC7950 section 7.9.2. says that if a “case” statement is omitted > (i.e. “case” shorthand) and implicit “case” node is created, schema > node identifiers MUST always explicitly include the implicit

[netmod] “case” shorthand

Hi, RFC7950 section 7.9.2. says that if a “case” statement is omitted (i.e. “case” shorthand) and implicit “case” node is created, schema node identifiers MUST always explicitly include the implicit “case” node identifiers. So the following snippet from yang model (below) is valid for Yang

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:49:05PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Obviously, relying on module names does not work if a module defines > > multiple datastores. So either the set of datastores is identified > > from reading the whole yang-library list or we provide a separate list > > (and I