[netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch

All, The authors created a "pre09" branch on GitHub a few weeks back. On this branch, they completed a full update of the draft. While waiting for details on how to proceed with regards to a SM-bis, we thought it would be helpful to make this text available now so that the technical parts

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

From: Robert Wilton, January 31, 2018 12:24 PM Hi Eric, On 31/01/2018 16:53, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: I have read and support these two drafts going forward. I do have one additional thought below on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores section 5.3 default handling process. See in-line...

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:53:48PM +, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > > I do have one additional thought below on > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores section 5.3 default handling process. > See in-line... > Well, this document is with the RFC editor now. I do not think it needs

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

Hi Eric, On 31/01/2018 16:53, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: I have read and support these two drafts going forward. I do have one additional thought below on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores section 5.3 default handling process.  See in-line... *From:*Robert Wilton -X, January 31, 2018

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

I have read and support these two drafts going forward. I do have one additional thought below on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores section 5.3 default handling process. See in-line... From: Robert Wilton -X, January 31, 2018 6:31 AM Hi Andy, On 31/01/2018 09:22, Andy Bierman wrote:

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

Hi, I read the draft draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-02, I believe it is important and ready to be published. We plan an implementation. Thanks for this work, Lada Mahesh Jethanandani writes: > Authors and WG, > > We have not received any explicit support for this

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

Hi Andy, On 31/01/2018 09:22, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:35:33PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

As co-author, I have read and support both drafts for advancement. In fact, I think that it is important that we get these drafts (and YL-bis) completed and standardized quickly, since the YANG models that IETF is standardizing rely on the NMDA. Thanks, Rob On 30/01/2018 19:33, Juergen

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:35:33PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have some questions about these drafts. > > > > 1) what if datastore set to "conventional"? > > There are

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

Hi, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I have some questions about these drafts. > > 1) what if datastore set to "conventional"? > There are many places where a datastore-ref type is used. > However, "conventional" is valid for base "datastore", even though > it is

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:35:33PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I have some questions about these drafts. > > 1) what if datastore set to "conventional"? > There are many places where a datastore-ref type is used. > However, "conventional" is valid for base "datastore", even