Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt

Hi Clyde. > I will remove TLS if that is the preference of the chair and the working > group. We'd have to ask the WG, since it's not a chair or shepherd decision. If you're okay leaving it in, and dealing with the fallout later, and no one objects, then I'm fine leaving TLS in. > RFC

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

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:55:53AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb

Re: [netmod] Fwd: [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang

Ok. On 08.02.18 20:56, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > >> On Feb 8, 2018, at 8:34 AM, Eliot Lear > > wrote: >> >> >> >> *From: *"M. Ranganathan" > >> *Subject: **[OPSAWG] Minor change in >>

Re: [netmod] Fwd: [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 8:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > > From: "M. Ranganathan" > Subject: [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang > Date: February 8, 2018 at 8:25:26 AM PST > To: ops...@ietf.org > > > In order to compile the

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

Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Who needs all this to manage a network? > > > > > > I sometimes get comments from people about NETCONF defaults, like > "You think this is a standard? Why does a vendor get to decide what > is a default leaf?" > > CoMI has taken a different

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

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:55:53AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > Then remove the text that says an error is sent

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

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > Then remove the text that says an error is sent if with-defaults > attempted > > on . > > None of this new text needs to

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

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Then remove the text that says an error is sent if with-defaults attempted > on . > None of this new text needs to go into NMDA. It can be a vendor-specific > mystery what gets set as origin=default. Implementors can read RFC

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

Hi, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > What we may consider, though, is to have a way to negate origin-filter > so that we can exclude specific origins - right now to emulate this > one has to (a) know all possible origins and then (b) list all origins > except

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

Andy Bierman wrote: > It should be clear in some draft how basic-mode applies to origin=default > within . > > Applying sec 2 of 6243... > > config=true: > > If basic-mode=report-all then origin=default will never be present Note that origin=default can be used for more

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

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >Frankly, carrying the different basic modes over to >sounds like a mistake. Complexity for no real value. +1 Thanks, Phil ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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

> > Who needs all this to manage a network? > > I sometimes get comments from people about NETCONF defaults, like "You think this is a standard? Why does a vendor get to decide what is a default leaf?" CoMI has taken a different approach. Every server MUST implement "trim" mode and nothing

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

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:03:49PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > 2) The operation returns all values in use. > > > > The only way to suppress defaults is to use > > > >

[netmod] Fwd: [OPSAWG] Minor change in ietf-access-control-l...@2018-02-02.yang

--- Begin Message --- In order to compile the published YANG model with OpenDaylight Yangtools I had to make the following change ( diff published file vs. changed file is below ): 583c583 < path "../../../../../../acl/name"; --- > path "/access-lists/acl/name";

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06.txt

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 : YANG Tree Diagrams Authors : Martin Bjorklund Lou Berger Filename:

Re: [netmod] Draft Normative references in a YANG module

Hi Tom, On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:28:30PM -, t.petch wrote: > Will the RFC Editor know that > >reference "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis: A YANG Data Model > for Interface Management"; > in > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09 > > needs replacing by RFC when that

Re: [netmod] Missing references

Hi Henrik, It makes sense. Thanks. Regards, B. Hi Benoit, On 2018-02-07 12:56, Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Henrik, Could this check be added to idnits? Yes. I thought I had something like this already, but it was specifically to look out for mentions of RFC2119. As you may know, I'm due to

Re: [netmod] Missing references

Hi Benoit, On 2018-02-07 12:56, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Henrik, > > Could this check be added to idnits? Yes. I thought I had something like this already, but it was specifically to look out for mentions of RFC2119. As you may know, I'm due to begin a complete rewrite of idnits, from the

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-00.txt

[Removing NETCONF since the I-D says -netmod-.] I flipped through the I-D yesterday and I think a common format for instance data trees should be NMDA aware these days. /js On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:17:25AM +0100, Balazs Lengyel wrote: >Hello, > >With Benoit I prepared a draft about

[netmod] New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-00.txt

Hello, With Benoit I prepared a draft about how to document and use YANG defined instance data. It could be useful for documenting  server capabilities or preloading data defined in implementation time and probably for other purposes as well. regards Balazs

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:28 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > In the light of this discussion, I would like to clarify that my > support is for the problem of tagging *modules*, which I believe this > draft is all about. I don't think we should extend this to tagging >

Re: [netmod] Question on schema-mount

Hi, "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote: > Hi, > > We have a question w.r.t. deletion of entry in a list using mounted > schema knowing that in NC/Y there is no such thing as a "cascading > delete" (leafref constructions in many cases even makes it impossible > to

[netmod] Question on schema-mount

Hi, We have a question w.r.t. deletion of entry in a list using mounted schema knowing that in NC/Y there is no such thing as a "cascading delete" (leafref constructions in many cases even makes it impossible to delete a resource if it is still referred). How does this apply to such a schema

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

Hi, In the light of this discussion, I would like to clarify that my support is for the problem of tagging *modules*, which I believe this draft is all about. I don't think we should extend this to tagging *nodes*; I think that requires a different mechanism. /martin Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [netmod] Question on range for parent-rel-pos in ietf-hatrdware.yang versus RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos

Thanks Martin, this makes sense. Regards, Bart -Original Message- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:24 AM To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Question on range for

Re: [netmod] Question on range for parent-rel-pos in ietf-hatrdware.yang versus RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos

"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote: > Hi, > > During implementation we came across the following anomaly: > > According to RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos the value should be > set to -1 in case there is no parent. > The hardware YANG model defines this leaf as