Hi Rob,
Thanks for the thoughtful proposal, and I support it.
One thing to confirm, for models that may become RFCs in the next two years and
where the IP address doesn’t support zones, "ip-address” should still be used.
Correct?
Thanks,
Yingzhen
> On Apr 11, 2022, at 10:06 AM, Rob Wilton
Rob, I think your suggestion is a good compromise.
I don't see the issue with deprecating no-zone since it can still be used.
Regards,Reshad.
On Monday, April 11, 2022, 02:43:53 PM EDT, Andy Bierman
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:09 AM Randy Presuhn
wrote:
Hi -
On 2022-04-11
Speaking as WG member inline.
From: netmod on behalf of Andy Bierman
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:28 PM
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
Cc: "l...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:09 AM Randy Presuhn <
randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On 2022-04-11 10:43 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > Do we have reason to believe that no one outside the IETF has used
> > ip-address as we published in ways that need a zone?
>
> It seems like
Hi -
On 2022-04-11 10:43 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Do we have reason to believe that no one outside the IETF has used
ip-address as we published in ways that need a zone?
It seems like wishful thinking. There's really no way to verify that
no one anywhere has used the specification as it
Do we have reason to believe that no one outside the IETF has used
ip-address as we published in ways that need a zone?
It seems to me that the first step in the plan below is reasonable. But
changing ip-address itself seems a bad idea. If one means no-zone, use
the -no-zone typedef.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:07 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the comments on this thread so far. It would be nice if we are
> able to come to some sort of rough consensus to a solution.
>
> I think that there is consensus that the YANG type ip-address (and the
> v4/v6
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments on this thread so far. It would be nice if we are able
to come to some sort of rough consensus to a solution.
I think that there is consensus that the YANG type ip-address (and the v4/v6
versions) are badly named as the prominent default type name has been
Hello,
Sorry for the late comments as I am not very familiar with the topic, but some
questions:
- What makes a tag "self-describing" ? Unless this "self-describing" has a
specific meaning, it would be easier not use it. I personally would prefer
instead of "self-describing data object tags"
From: Kent Watsen
Sent: 11 April 2022 12:21
Thank to you all for the responses.
I do like the full 40 page tree, as an appendix. If I want to look for the use
of e.g. ip-address then the full tree is much easier to riff through than lots
of little pieces. The I-D I mention has pieces as
Hi,
I do not find this draft useful.
I am curious about the extensions introduced.
It looks like all containers and lists are tagged as 'object'.
All config=true terminals are tagged as 'property'
and perhaps all config=false terminals are tagged as 'metric'
(although the example shows a
See inline.
On 4/11/22, 5:13 AM, "tom petch" wrote:
From: Lsr on behalf of Reshad Rahman
Sent: 10 April 2022 21:42
Inline.
On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 06:04:42 PM EDT, Acee Lindem (acee)
wrote:
Hi Chris (as WG member),
On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps"
Hi, Jurgen:
-邮件原件-
发件人: Jürgen Schönwälder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
发送时间: 2022年4月11日 20:18
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: Kent Watsen ; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:52:10AM +, Qin Wu wrote:
> >I have not
It seems like we confuse use cases with mechanisms. We should IMHO
focus on defining one mechanism to convey metadata and ideally that
mechanism than supports multiple use cases.
/js
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 01:14:08PM +, Qin Wu wrote:
> Hi, Jurgen:
> Thank for bringing this issue up.
>
Google pointed me to
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/XPath/Functions/current
and the Notes section on that page explains the difference.
/js
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 01:04:24PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Xpath experts,
> What is the difference between the meaning of
>
Hi, Jurgen:
Thank for bringing this issue up.
Generally, I feel two drafts are orthogonal to each other.
Draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06 focuses on YANG modelled data classification
while draft-claise-netconf-metadata-for-collection-03 focuses on telemetry
related server capability exposure,
Hello Xpath experts,
What is the difference between the meaning of
Current()
And "." Single dot
In YANG-Xpath ?
must ". <= 10"
must "current() <= 10"
Are these the same?
Regards Balazs
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:52:10AM +, Qin Wu wrote:
> >I have not read the document in detail yet but I find the notion of data
> >objects and subobjects confusing. I also do not know what "massive" data
> >object collections are or why both objects and subobjects can be modeled as
> >YANG
Hi, Jürgen:
Thank for quick comments. Please see reply inline below.
-邮件原件-
>发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Jürgen Sch?nw?lder
>发送时间: 2022年4月11日 16:19
>收件人: Kent Watsen
>抄送: netmod@ietf.org
>主题: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06
>I have a problem with
Hi all,
Agree with Martin.
Here is the note I'm using in some RFCs with long trees:
The full tree diagram of the module can be generated using the
"pyang" tool [PYANG]. That tree is not included here because it is
too long (Section 3.3 of [RFC8340]). Instead, subtrees are provided
> But a 40 page tree diagram isn't very useful anyway, imo. If I want
> the full tree diagram I can run a tool to generate it. Tree diagrams
> are best used in combination with explanatory text to explain certain
> aspects of the module design. Perhaps section 3.4 in RFC 8407 should be
>
Hi Tom,
Martin beat me on this one.
So the famous +1 to his "in combination with explanatory text to explain
certain aspects of the module design "reply :-)
We got rid a page number for a good reason (in the YANG world).
Regards, Benoit
On 4/11/2022 1:02 PM, Martin Björklund wrote:
tom
tom petch wrote:
> Can a YANG tree diagram contain comment lines?
>
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te has a tree diagram of 40 pages and since the
> IETF has abolished the page number, then any reference into it could
> be a challenge. For a YANG module, this can be ameliorated by
> inserting comment
Yes. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8340#section-2.5
Lou
--
On April 11, 2022 6:52:27 AM tom petch wrote:
Can a YANG tree diagram contain comment lines?
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te has a tree diagram of 40 pages and since the IETF has
abolished the page number, then any
Can a YANG tree diagram contain comment lines?
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te has a tree diagram of 40 pages and since the IETF has
abolished the page number, then any reference into it could be a challenge.
For a YANG module, this can be ameliorated by inserting comment lines every
page or two.
From: Lsr on behalf of Reshad Rahman
Sent: 10 April 2022 21:42
Inline.
On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 06:04:42 PM EDT, Acee Lindem (acee)
wrote:
Hi Chris (as WG member),
On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps"
mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, Acee
I have a problem with the term "Self-Describing Data Object Tags". It
is not clear what 'self-describing' means. RFC 8819 defines "YANG
Module Tags", i.e., tags that apply to entire modules. Perhaps this
document should be titled "YANG Data Node Instance Tags".
There should be in general a check
During the NETCONF meeting at IETF 113, Benoit presented an I-D titled
Per-Node Capabilities for Optimum Operational Data Collection
draft-claise-netconf-metadata-for-collection-03
and I asked why we need another metadata export mechanism given that
node tags is been worked on
Hi Kent, all,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Kent Watsen
> Envoyé : vendredi 8 avril 2022 20:10
> À : Qin Wu ; Benoit Claise
> ; Peng Liu ;
> Zongpeng Du ; BOUCADAIR Mohamed
> INNOV/NET
> Cc : Liang Geng ;
Hi, all
V-03 is available now:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ma-netmod-with-system-03.txt.
This version addresses comments raised by Balazs (thank you Balazs for your
valuable comments).
The main changes are following:
• Define a RESTCONF capability URI for
30 matches
Mail list logo
