Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of preparation for WG Adoption of:
draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above?
Please state either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR
All,
We're a couple days away from the 2-week window. As of now, the
majority does not support adopting this draft. Any remaining
opinions?
Lada,
The objections seem to be concern for net readability, and for the
importance of the problem relative to other activities. For the
former case,
or v4
and v6 into this it would work for me but I think the IETF may have missed the
boat on this one.
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote:
HI David,
I believe an analogy to the ietf-routing module can and shou
All,
This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a
NETMOD working group document:
draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document.
you add to this in the future and rev up the RFC? Sure. However, I am
not sure what value that brings to the community. In its current form I would
not ask any of my vendors to implement this draft. Instead I would push them
towards the OpenConfig ACL model.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:12 PM,
Hi Benoit,
Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says:
The "" tag SHOULD be followed by a string
identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of
[RFC7950].
While Section 5.2 of RFC7950 says:
The name of the file SHOULD be of the form:
module-or-submodule-name ['@' revision-date]
understand.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:09 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01
> I believe this is the wrong di
> 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
> 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
>> 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
> 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 think we should provide a separate list).
It seems okay for more than one
>> The new dynamic datastores are (per this draft) advertised by being
>> listed in YANG Library. Only the "built in" datastores wouldn't have
>> a module-backing.
>
> Actually, in the current draft, each module has a leaf-list of all
> datastores (not only dynamic) where the module is
> Currently there is no explicit mechanism for a server to
> advertise which datastores is supports, other that the advertisment of
> features in "ietf-datastore". Maybe we should add an explicit list of
> supported datastores (but this will be protocol-dependent, since some
> protocols might
7/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>>> I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis.
>>>>
>>>> Mehmet
>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net]
>>>>>
the
first paragraph I have issue with. The more I think about it, the
more I think the first paragraph should, for the most part, disappear.
K. // contributor
-ORIGINAL MESSAGE-
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> writes:
> A couple comments:
>
> 1) drilling down o
>> 1) drilling down on the mandatory-to-implement NC/RC protocols
>>is somewhat missing the point. The important bit is that
>>*all* protocols transporting YANG-modeled data *only* have
>>secure transport layers. More specifically, YANG-modeled
>>data may be transported over
typo:
new: one of the protocols *may* have an insecure protocol
K.
-ORIGINAL MESSAGE-
A couple comments:
1) drilling down on the mandatory-to-implement NC/RC protocols
is somewhat missing the point. The important bit is that
*all* protocols transporting YANG-modeled data
A couple comments:
1) drilling down on the mandatory-to-implement NC/RC protocols
is somewhat missing the point. The important bit is that
*all* protocols transporting YANG-modeled data *only* have
secure transport layers. More specifically, YANG-modeled
data may be transported
Benoit,
I fixed this text in my drafts already. Actually, I found the old text
difficult to
read, so I fixed it like this:
The YANG module defined in this document is designed to be accessed
via YANG based management protocols, such as NETCONF
Hi David,
Can you please confirm that the additional examples address your concern? And,
if not, please
explain if there is any reason why what you're looking for couldn't be added or
augmented in
in the future.
Thanks,
Kent // shepherd
On 3/13/17, 5:57 AM, "netmod on behalf of Dean
>> This way, reader can focus more quickly on the diffs, but also this
>> likely mimics what happened in reality (start with `pyang -f tree`
>> and then manually edit from there). What do you think?
>>
>
> Manually edited tree diagrams? I hope not. Perhaps we should have text
> saying that
> I think we can allow both and leave it to the document author. Either
> the author uses a well known tree format and refers to its definition
> or the author uses a not yet well known tree format and then it has
> to be defined inline:
Nice compromise, but even then it would be helpful if a
k Modeling (NETMOD)
-
Charter
Current Status: Active
Chairs:
Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Operations and Management Area Directors:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>
Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com>
Oper
>> I think we should encourage authors to write examples.
>
> +1 And also encourage authors to validate the examples
> using their favorite YANG instance validation tool.
Please note this from the latest 6087bis update:
4.12. Module Usage Examples
Each specification that defines one
>> If we pick the former, it will not be possible to configure a component with
>> a system controlled parent (unless you also add the system controlled parent
>> to the configuration).
>> [Bart Bogaert] Is there a reason to only have this parent in the state tree
>> and not in the config tree?
session on Tue or Wed in Chicago.
Cheers,
Mehmet
> -Original Message-
> From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 7:27 PM
> To: 'Mehmet Ersue' <mer...@gmail.com>; 'Kent Watsen'
> <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org
> Cc: netmod-cha..
Hi Benoit,
You seem to know the ins and outs of many tools these days, maybe you can point
me in the right direction...which tool is able to validate instance documents
against YANG 1.1 modules?
I've always used `yang2dsdl`, but currently it outputs "DSDL plugin supports
only YANG version
Thanks Andy!
- update YANG tree syntax section
I wasn't expecting for the pyang --tree-help output to be used verbatim, but
am okay with it also. It's just different then the long-form we've been using
to date...
- add new sub-section on usage examples
Nice addition, but should it say
Hi Juergen,
> Hi,
>
> the canonical format for integer types is the decimal representation.
> We do not seem to have a mechanism (other than a description statement)
> to declare that the canonical representation is lets say hexadecimal.
> For example, EtherType
All,
Lou and I were discussing how it seems unnecessary that every draft
has the same boilerplate text regarding how to interpret tree diagram
notations. It would be nice if drafts could instead just reference
another draft that contains this information. Does this make sense?
Assuming we're
Hi Andy,
Lou and I just noticed that Section 3 (YANG Tree Diagrams) is out of
date, as it is missing notation described by `pyang --tree-help` (see
below). Since this draft is still in AD Review, can you please be
sure to update this section, either now or along with the next update?
Thanks,
Current Status: Active
Chairs:
Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Operations and Management Area Directors:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>
Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Benoit Claise <bc
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 the term used in our RFCs, and I believe
that such a change would likely have to begin with the YANG spec, from
Chairs:
Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Operations and Management Area Directors:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>
Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>
Hi Rob,
> Hi Kent, Lou,
>
> I think that it might possibly be a good idea to please align the
> timelines for:
>
> draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang
> draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-yang
>
> because I think that it will be somewhat helpful to review both
> documents together.
Can you
>
> True, this is keystore territory, and I don’t think this should venture in
> that direction – the [sic]
> can be considered clearly out of scope.
Why would it be out of scope? Seems like this is actually what you might want
given what you
wrote below...
> However, what would actually
>> - should the leafs not starting with "cert-" start with "sig-", to better
>> match section 6.1?
>
> No, that would actually match less and be misleading. The parameters
> mentioned in 6.1.1
> refer to configuration parameters for certificate blocks, and are accordingly
> prefixed “cert”.
nticate the other
(non-sign) messages. Section 7 in RFC 5848 describes all this in detail.
--- Alex
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:46 PM
To: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-mo...@ietf.org
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] W
24 states that the severity and protocol values are not normative.
* It's not clear to me why this needs to be split into two modules. Is it so
that other modules can define logging parameters but still be usable on a
device without syslog?
* "log-severity" defines a severity filter,
<lber...@labn.net>
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Operations and Management Area Directors:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>
Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>
Secretary:
be usable on a
device without syslog?
* "log-severity" defines a severity filter, not a severity, so its name is
misleading.
* Perhaps the "severity" type and the facility identities should have
"reference" statements referring to RFC 5424, rather than referring to it
Hi Lada,
>> Yes, the YANG would have to define schema for both the template and
>> expanded forms.
>
>Are you saying that running and intended (may) have different schemas?
>The draft indicates that only intended is subject to validation. Either
>way, it significantly changes the rules of the
Hi Jason,
> draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00 mentions that “Templates
> are expanded when copied into ”.
>
> That means the non-expanded template (i.e. the single copy of template data
> itself)
> is in the running.
Yes.
> Is that original non-expanded template data (which is
As for a concrete use-case, would something like this be helpful
for a server to indicate which datastores a module is supported in?
I'm thinking specifically about the revised-datastores draft where
we've discussed that a module might exist in just oper-state,
oper-state + ephemeral, oper-state
Hi Rohit,
On one hand, this seems like a protocol issue, so opting for NETCONF's
definitions makes sense. On the other hand, RFC 6241 is just defining the
error-tag without mandating when it's used, whereas RFC 7950 is specifying when
it's to be used, so opting for YANG's normative language
Thank you Andy for addressing all the items listed here:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17520.html.
Benoit, I believe this draft addresses the comments raised during
the AD review.
Kent // as shepherd
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
The NETCONF and NETMOD chairs are actively discussing how we might move content
around between drafts maintained by the two groups. Resolving this
notification statement issue is part of that. Here are some of my thoughts
about this:
1) I think that YANG is primarily used to define the
Hi Martin,
> I would like to see urn:example:, that's what
> I usually use here.
You mean the NID from RFC 6963? Sure, that can be mentioned
as well but, unlike the other two examples, it's *only* useful
for examples...it does not represent a template that could be
used in production.
Kent //
> I think it is better to have a human decide what is in the module
> instead of relying on a pyang plugin to generate some additional module
> that follows some simplistic pattern.
It may be simple, but I’m thinking that’s only because it’s not tricky ;)
> Of course this solution only works
Hi Clyde,
The LC period has ended. While we only received two reviews, I think both were
quite good and thorough and, as far as I can tell, entail needing a non-trivial
update to the draft.
My thoughts are that you should continue working with Alex and Andy to ensure
their issues are
I think that there may be a better way here: The data modelers design the
model on the assumption that an operational state datastore will be present.
We can then use a pyang plugin to generate an extra YANG model that contains
the missing state leaves that would be required for the split
>Bill Fenner wrote:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4151 defines the "tag:" URI scheme, which
>> allows the creation of URIs with nearly arbitrary syntax by anyone with an
>> email address or domain name. E.g.,
>> "tag:example.com,2016:yang:interface-extension".
>> The
the Last Call
period, and ultimately post an updated draft capturing the WG consensus.
Thanks,
Kent // as shepherd
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:54 AM
To: Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com>,
This is a notice to start a two-week NETMOD WG last call for the document:
A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11
Please indicate your support or concerns by Tuesday, December 27, 2016.
We are particularly interested
;
diagnostics true;<-- new flag here
...
}
Is all this leading up to a draft? ;)
Kent // contributor
From: Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com>
Date: Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:10 AM
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>, Andy Bierman <a...
> Why can't you use a when-stmt?
>
>
> system
>
> ...
>
>// config false
>// when "/top/diag-mode = 'system'"
>
>
>
Can we have a solution that is session-oriented, like with-defaults? Maybe
the ‘when’ expression’s context
datastore proposal.
K.
On 12/2/16, 7:45 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Kent,
So are you suggesting the nacm:default-deny-all for key strings rather
than omitting it from the operational state?
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/2/16, 3:15 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwa
Hi Acee,
Sorry for being late to this thread. As Mehesh mentioned, this aspect of the
keystore mode is currently open, and being tracked by github issue #2.
It is my understanding that the working group would like to pursue a strategy
that supports backup/restore operations to the greatest
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
What is the -01 comment about? AFAIK, we’d post
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00 (based on
draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00) following adoption...
Kent // as an author
On 11/28/16, 5:50 PM, "Lou Berger"
NETCONF and NETMOD WGs,
As mentioned in today’s NETMOD session, there will be a breakout meeting
tomorrow to continue the discussion of proposal in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00. If
interested in this topic, please join us in Park Ballroom 3 starting
Updates:
- Andy Bierman is now presenting the entity draft
- Dean Bogdanovic is presenting the Routing Area DT Update
- Clyde Wildes is now presenting -11 (not -09)
- the presentation of the alarm draft has been removed
- the time-slot for session 2 has been corrected
PM
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until
Oct 27, 2016)
On Oct 29, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>&g
oun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>
Date: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 3:01 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until
Oct 27, 2016)
The last call period for this draft h
updates needed per the AD’s review.
Thanks,
Kent
From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>
Date: Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:56 PM
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 6087bis shepherd writeup issues
H
The preliminary agenda for the two NETMOD sessions has been posted here:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/agenda/agenda-97-netmod-00.txt
Cheers,
Kent
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
All,
The datastore design team has posted the draft below.
Please note that the chairs are prioritizing this draft for the upcoming 97
meeting. In particular, we plan to devote enough time for a thorough
presentation on Tuesday, a breakout session on Wednesday, and a summary of the
breakout
Hi All,
The draft working group agenda for 97 is due this Monday. If you are
interested in presenting at IETF 97, please send a request to
mailto:netmod-cha...@ietf.org. Please include the following information in
your request:
- name of presentation [optional, only needed if
Authors, Contributors, WG,
This IPR disclosure requests is being made as part of the preparation
for WG adoption of this draft.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above?
Please state either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm
Dear working group,
Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item
and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please
comment by Friday, November 4, 2016 so that the WG Chairs can gauge
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the
Andy, all,
In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues that
I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit for AD
review:
1. Idnits found the following:
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6242' is mentioned on line 2233, but not defined
==
to move forward with publishing the document as it is. If
anyone disagrees with this, please speak up now.
Thanks,
Kent (as shepherd)
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM
To: "netmod@
,
Kent (and Lou)
From: Adrian Pan <adrian@ericsson.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 4:55 AM
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 (until
Oct 5, 2016)
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of the WG Last Call, are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft
identified above? Please state either:
* "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
* "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
If “yes”, has this IPR been
This is a notice to start a two-week NETMOD WG last call for the document:
Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08
Please indicate your support or concerns by Wednesday, October 5, 2016.
We are
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of the WG Last Call, are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft
identified above? Please state either:
* "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
* "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
If “yes”, has this IPR been
This is a notice to start a two-week NETMOD WG last call for the document:
Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-08
Please indicate your support or concerns by Wednesday, October
to the ‘WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up’ working group state shortly; the shepherd will
take it from there.
Thanks,
Kent (and Lou)
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>
Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:54 PM
To: "netmod@
>Then you probably already know what the solution is going to be. I don't.
It’s not that I know the exact solution. It’s that I see this approach
offering good options for graceful migration to an opstate compliant solution
(for which I’m on the design team alias), without incurring any
Amendment: previous message as a contributor.
K.
On 9/2/16, 3:30 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
It holds. Some have FUD. I do not.
K.
On 9/2/16, 4:35 AM, "Ladislav L
etmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen
Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 20:41
> To: Kent Watsen
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23
(until Sep 9, 2016)
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016
, but that thread seemed to have petered out, but now
here we are and my opinion remains the same.
Thanks,
Kent
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>
Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:54 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Su
I like Jonathan’s proposed text as well.
Kent // as a contributor
On 8/31/16, 8:14 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
wrote:
On 8/31/16, 8:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
This is a notice to start a two-week NETMOD WG last call for the document:
A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23
Please indicate your support or concerns by Thursday September 9, 2016.
We are not
ture, go ahead an use it. Also ok to stay and 1.0.
Kent Watsen: Also Andy's point as well.
Lou Berger: see a nod of "yes" from AD
Vladimir Vassilev: 1.1 to 1.2, will be same question?
Lou Berger: We have that issue whenever we rev techs.
Kent Watsen: If there's a feature in
) in a published standard. This is why I
would like the clarification to cover IDs (at least WG-adopted ones)!
Thanks,
William
> On 15 Aug 2016, at 20:40, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> Nits:
>
> 1. First it says “unpublished” the
>Perhaps we should make it clear that 'publish' is meant in the
>traditional RFC 2026 sense.
We could add a reference to RFC 2026, but I think that it’s easy enough to make
the text understandable to any reader, regardless their familiarity with IETF
process. I like that we’ve moved
Nits:
1. First it says “unpublished” then it says “posted”, I think it better to
replace the latter with “published” so the terms are consistent.
2. “unpublished” is unclear. At least I consider submitting an I-D to
datatracker as a form of publishing. I think it might be better here to
I think the issue is at the end of the sentence, my proposal:
- the Internet-Draft is re-posted.
+ the work is published (e.g., it becomes an RFC).
That said, for IETF drafts (not other SDOs), my understanding is that the
revision statement’s date value SHOULD be the date that the I-D
>, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>, Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de<mailto:j
Before the "rule" I can choose to place monitoring in its own module
without any reliance on other modules. If the monitoring does not share
indexing,
what value is there in putting it in the config tree? I see none except a poor
attempt at model classification.
[KENT] from opstate-reqs:
indirectly
related, in that a holistic solution can address both.
Kent
From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>
Date: Monday, August 8, 2016 at 5:51 PM
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com>, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton -
Acee writes:
>Then I see no YANG language barriers in collapsing config and state trees
>- the model root just needs to be “config true”.
Great, I think we’re all agreed. Can we now discuss the text I proposed for
6087bis? - here’s the link to my proposal:
Following Lou’s recommendation, my proposed changes for rfc6087bis Section 5.23
follow:
5.23. Operational Data
In YANG, any data that has a "config" statement value of "false"
could be considered operational data. The relationship between
configuration (i.e., "config" statement
>> Firstly, I’m trying to get a sense of how big a problem this
>> foo/foo-state thing is. [Note: by foo-state, I’m only referring
>> to counters, not opstate].
RW:
By counters, I think that we also mean any config false nodes that don't
directly represent "applied configuration", right? E.g.
There are a number of issues here. The first is that you are now depending on
the separate applied state data store being implemented on every network device
if you are going to eliminate the duplication of actual values in the OpState.
The second is that OpsState is MUCH more than just
So my thinking is that if we can't merge "foo-state" into "foo" then instead we
should have consistent rules that explicitly state that for all IETF models
"foo" and "foo-state" are separate trees with a consistent naming convention
and structure. That should hopefully allow tooling to
All,
We just wanted to update the WG on the break out meeting on updated
conceptual YANG datastores that took place last Wednesday. It was a very
productive meeting attended by 20+ people. Progress was made on
formalizing a revised conceptual datastore model. Based on this meeting,
we will be
>> Juergen writes:
>> Bottom line: I think we should continue to follow the model used by
>> the ietf-interfaces model and the ietf-ip model until we have a better
>> solution in place (and subsequently we can deprecate objects that
>> became redundant).
>
> Rob writes:
> This is pretty much what
> RW:
> Are you thinking of a single global notification of convergence?
> No
>
> I think the client would request a notification for its edit.
> There would be a long-form and short-form notification.
>
> The interaction model is simple:
> A) at the time of the request the client opt-in for
M, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Dale R. Worley
<wor...@ariadne.com<mailto:wor...@ariadne.com>> wrote:
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> writes:
> 1) Remove the text "In addition, the Area Director and other conta
701 - 800 of 915 matches
Mail list logo