On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 13:25 -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> On 1/18/18 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> > > > to publish
Acee,
Thanks for considering my comment. I'm OK with the new version.
B.R.
Jia
-邮件原件-
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2018年1月18日 0:03
收件人: Hejia (Jia) ; rtg-...@ietf.org
抄送: rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: Rtg
Hi,
I posted draft-16 which has all changes below except the unused reference
for RFC 5378.
The idnits tool is wrong. It ignores usage in an appendix.
Andy
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
>
> 1) before I forget, could you please confirm one more time (the last
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
Title : Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data
Model Documents
Author : Andy Bierman
Filename
On 1/18/18 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
>>> to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
>>> something
Thanks.
It's now verified.
Regards, Benoit.
Hi,
This errata should be applied. It is an obvious typo.
/martin
RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950,
"The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
--
You may revie
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7950,
"The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5237
--
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Repor
Hi,
This errata should be applied. It is an obvious typo.
/martin
RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950,
> "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
>
> --
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://ww
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> > to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
> > something different 3-6 months later?
>
> IMO such a docume
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
> something different 3-6 months later?
IMO such a document churn would be a serious mistake.
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950,
"The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5237
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Muly Ilan
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:25:35AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
>> when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half
>> pretty quickly.
>
> I provided a reasoning why 3 months may be feasible, I doubled
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:25:35AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
> when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half
> pretty quickly.
I provided a reasoning why 3 months may be feasible, I doubled it
since
On 1/18/18 05:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
> something different 3-6 months later?
Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
w
Hi,
We do have a question about the operational-state value 'not-present'. The
revised data store draft document mentions that for resources that are not
available (e.g. HW components) there will not be an entry for the state (see
section 5.3.2) so for equipment there will never be a state ent
Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
something different 3-6 months later?
Note that the NMDA contributors, after getting the overall design
done, move sequentially through the details of the docume
Martin,
I do agree with that at some point we will need to revisit scheme mount in
the context of YL-bis, as there are different possible solutions for
handling different datastores mounting different schema. I think Rob laid
out the options pretty well here, ie doing it now or publishing as
Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Ready
Status: Ready to Go.
General comments: Excellent document, well written and extremely readable.
Appendices add to the document. Suggestion: Progress this document quickly
since it handles revised datastores work.
Technical side-comment: I know I am i
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 08:56 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need
> > > > > to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support
19 matches
Mail list logo
