Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > Martin, > > > On March 6, 2018 4:44:47 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is > > in AUTH48

Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com <mailto:m...@tail-f.com>> wrote: > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder &

Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

m> wrote: > > > On 03/05/2018 06:40 PM, Per Hedeland wrote: > > On 2018-03-05 16:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:49 +0100, Per Hedeland wrote: > >>> On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 201

Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > > > So it seems the running code got it right. ;-) > > > > As the author of that code, I think that was

Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:14:26PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > > On 03/05/2018 01:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > > > I prefer that the choice/case nodes do not have any flags since they > > > are not having a

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5274)

Hi, This errata is correct and should be accepted. I think the actual URI to use is less important, so the proposed URI is fine. /martin RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, > "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language".

[netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

Hi, Lifting this issue to its own thread. With this snippet: choice subnet { case prefix-length { leaf prefix-length { type uint8; } } case netmask { leaf netmask { type yang:dotted-quad; } } } pyang prints

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:09:21PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > &

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

led from the RFC EDITOR queue, and reworked to be compliant > >> again, > >> and this very well could lead to discovering issues with your new > >> proposal. > >> Any new issues discovered in either the pending RFCs *or* in the new > >> solution > &g

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

. I know that others want to, and/or explore other solutions. That's *not* what I'm proposing. /martin > > Lou > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2016-netmod-01/session/netmod > > On 2/23/2018 4:36 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, &

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Lou, > > I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in > pre-09. I agree. Servers that are NMDA-compliant, or implements YANG Library bis will have to present schemas in two different structures, depending on where the schema

Re: [netmod] LL review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04

Hi, Thank you for this review. Comments inline. Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > here is my review of the rfc7895bis document: > > *** General comments > - This revision is a significant improvement necessary for > supporting NMDA. However, it is also flexible enough

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

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] 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

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

"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

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

efaults" works for conventional datastores. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > This looks good. > > Showing the work... > > 1) there is no YANG default for parameter. > The behavior if this parameter is missing is determined by the operation Right. So in this cas

Re: [netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch

the solution that the WG agreed upon. /martin Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 11:41 +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > On 07/02/2018 10:29, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 11:14 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Re: [netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:25:52PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > I think that the term "external" could also be confusing, since I think that > > sort of implies peer mount like semantics. > > The "inline" mount concept

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

Hi, I support this document as a working group document. I do have some things to discuss, e.g., should we try to use a decentralized approach to tags instead of the proposed IANA registry (as it happens we have a mechanism for decentralized, hierarchical identifiers available :) One use case

Re: [netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch

Hi, Thanks for your comments, see inline. Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi, > > Some comments on the pre-09 version, particularly the data model. > > > 1) I still don't get why this draft is called "YANG Schema Mount" > rather than "YANG Mount", since to me this implies that it

Re: [netmod] schema-mount pre09 branch

Hi Juergen, Thanks for your review, comments inline. Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 09:36:07PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > The authors created a "pre09" branch on GitHub a few weeks back. On this > > branch, they completed a

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

Hi, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > This closes the LC for the two NDMA drafts for NETCONF and RESTCONF. > > As part of the LC, there were a couple of comments/questions > raised. In particular > > - Vladmir reported an error, which Martin said is fixed in his local

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > WG, > > The authors of rfc7895bis have indicated that they believe the > document is ready for LC[1]. > > This starts a two week LC on the draft > . The LC > will end on February

Re: [netmod] RtgDir review: Review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt

Hi Stig, Thank you for your review! Comments inline. Stig Venaas wrote: > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call

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

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Same here. And same here. /martin > > /js > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 06:55:32PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > I have read and support both drafts for advancement. > > > > Kent // co-author > > > > > > =

Re: [netmod] YANG tree diagram uses

Michal Vaško wrote: > Hi, > > we have encountered some problem while implementing a feature from > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05, specifically not resolving > groupings and printing uses names instead (Section 2.2). > > We have 2 example models, A and B. A defines a

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion.

Hi, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Maybe a meeting at this point is useful? It would consolidate things and > get away from the endless email threads. > > If this isn't already known to everyone. There are many people for whom > the length of time to market from IETF simple

Re: [netmod] Closure - : WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Hi, I just posted draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt. It addressed the issue below, and the other WGLC issues: o the main tree now uses 2 spaces for indentation instead of 4 o added example for expanded/unexpanded grouping o fixed errors in the row syntax o aligned all

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

Hi, So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus in the WG? I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is divided on this issue. For the record, if this means that using Schema Mount *with* NMDA gets delayed, I strongly object to this decision. Assuming this

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in > > which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-01

Lou Berger wrote: > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > As part of the preparation for WG adoption: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. /martin

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

or > whose impact can be fully analyzed. > > Lou > > On January 19, 2018 3:59:22 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > ... > > Hi, > > > > joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 1/18/18 11:

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Hi, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > > > On 1/18/18 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >>> Ignoring process iss

Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5237)

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

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

ng as is and > > > immediately working on the document that covers both. > > > > > > As I mentioned before I think this is as much a process issue as anything > > > else - and have a planned call to discuss possible directions with > > > chairs. I > &

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> 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 NMDA. > &g

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 17:18 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > >

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > &

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > >> > >> On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >>> On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: &g

Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Hi, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > On 17/01/2018 07:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Alexander Clemm <alexander.cl...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> +1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1). I don't think (3) is needed > >> here. The purpose is

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-15.txt

Hi, These errors seem to be issues with the tool, not the draft. /martin Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Mahesh, > > There is an error with the yangdump-pro: > >Error: Feature 'match-on-eth and match-on-ipv4' not found for >if-feature statement >

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > >>> On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: &

Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Alexander Clemm wrote: > +1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1). I don't think (3) is needed > here. The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers > a good sense of the overall structure. The authoritative > specification is still the .yang

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > ... (trimming to topic) > >>>>>>>> rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already > >>>>>>>> with > &g

Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: [...] > >> There is also undocumented alignment space count function before > >> that pya

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > >> > >> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > >> wrote:

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > >> Lada, > >> > >> > >> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger wrote: > Lada, > > > On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > >> Lada, > >> > >> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in > >> the > >> direction

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > Lada, > > > > It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the > > direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been > > It is no change in direction, just

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi Lou, > > in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes: > > 1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having > a parallel list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted > schemas directly in the YANG

Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > Hi, > > I have reviewed and implemented (apart from schema mount specific > functionality) draft-ietfetf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-04 and found > the following issues: > > ==sec 2.6.  Node Representation== > > 1. To correctly reflect the

Re: [netmod] Reminder: WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 15/01/2018 15:26, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, > >> > >> All OK with me except where I have further comments/questions inline >

Re: [netmod] Reminder: WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > All OK with me except where I have further comments/questions inline > below: > > On 15/01/2018 14:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the review! Comments inline. >

Re: [netmod] Reminder: WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Hi, Thanks for the review! Comments inline. Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Lou, Martin > > I've done a quick review of draft -04. > > It looks well written to me. > > I have a spotted a few minor nits/questions. > > Section 1: > > (i) "Such diagrams are commonly used to

Re: [netmod] hi Martin, one issue about RFC7950 7.20.3.2. The "deviate" Statement, please help to confirm

Hi, This is an issue that has been reported before. It is tracked in https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/14. This said, I think in this particular case, where you define both the when expression and the if-feature leaf, I think the correct solution is to ensure that the when

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

, and thus contain the detected values. If no value is detected, the node is not present. Note that 1 or 3 can be done in a future update to this module (or by a vendor). /martin Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Hi, > > "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <

Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Adam Roach wrote: > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-02: No Objection [...] > -- > COMMENT: >

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

and simply make these three nodes config false in ietf-hardware. /martin > > Regards, Bart > > /martin > > > > > > Best regards, Bart > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert > >

Re: [netmod] Last Call: (Network Management Datastore Architecture) to Proposed Standard two

Hi Tom, "tom p." wrote: > Much of this I-D is about the idea that network management data objects > can often take two different values. The I-D always refers to this as > being two values but is that a limit that this architecture imposes; or > can it be more? The I-D

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

ards, Bart > > -Original Message- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert > Wilton > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:14 PM > To: Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com>; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > On 08/01/2018 19:45, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Robert Wilton > > wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > Regarding your comment below, this intent is

Re: [netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > Hello, > > I'm a little confused on the Security Consideration section

Re: [netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01: (with DISCUSS)

Hi, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > Hello, > > Thanks for your work on this draft. It appears an older

Re: [netmod] Netmod ACL - Can "access-lists" be set up as a "grouping"

"Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > From: netmod > > on behalf of Jon Shallow > > > Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 10:47 AM > To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton

Re: [netmod] Netmod ACL - Can "access-lists" be set up as a "grouping"

Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Einar, Jon, Mahesh, > > My gut instinct is that making this a grouping might not be a good > idea: > > 1) If somebody updates the core ACL model, will then need to check > that anyone using it should be similarly updated (unless they use >

Re: [netmod] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07

Hi, Radek Krejčí wrote: > Reviewer: Radek Krejčí > Review result: Ready with Issues > > The document itself and normative parts seem fine to me, the only issue I see > is with the ietf-hardware-state module in non-normative appendix A. It seems > to > me that this temporary

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request

Igor Bryskin wrote: > Hi, > I have a question for the authors. > Today a yang-tree-diagram represents extended YANG groupings , which > often makes a tree hard to read/ understand. Do you think there could > be a way to represent groupings as collapsed? In draft -03, we

[netmod] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

Reviewer: Martin Bjorklund Review result: Ready with Nits Hi, I have reviewed this document mainly from a NMDA perspective. As expected, the YANG model follows all conventions and looks good in general. Most of my comments below relate to NMDA terminology. o Abstract and Introdcution Both

Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 14:25 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > > > > > > > Hi Andy, > > &

Re: [netmod] xpaths and Wrapping Long Lines - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-03

> > On 21. Dec 2017, at 11:43, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:39:47AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > >> But this is in the YANG source; I think Ian asked about the tree >

Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > > > Hi Andy, > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments a

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:46PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle > > 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'mode

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

ave as if it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in (1)."; /martin Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, > >>

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

Hi, Thanks for this review! Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > In order not to be the bottleneck in the process and assuming that the > document will be in "publication requested" pretty soon, here is my AD > review of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08 > > - > >

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thanks. > Only kept the relevant excerpts. > > > >> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933: > >>entPhysicalSerialNum > >>entPhysicalAlias > >>entPhysicalAssetID > >>entPhysicalUris > >> > >> For example,

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Hi, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06. > Note that if you post the new version soon (before the end of this > week), I could start the IETF last call, and the draft could be on Jan > 11th IESG telechat. > > - I don't

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08.txt

of the IETF. > > Title : Network Management Datastore Architecture > Authors : Martin Bjorklund > Juergen Schoenwaelder > Phil Shafer > Kent Watsen >

Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Hi Lou, Lou Berger wrote: > Hi, > These comments are based on my Shepherd review of this document and > should be addressed as part of addressing any LC comments: > > 1) Considering the recent discussion on Library made me consider the > general case of a module that is

Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Hi Andy, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been > addressed. > > This might be the most important sentence in the draft: > > sec. 5.3 > >The datastore schema for MUST be a superset of the >combined

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request

joel jaeggli wrote: > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > As part of the preparation for WG Last Call: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft /martin > > Please state either: > > "No, I'm

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-03.txt

.org wrote: > > 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 >

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.txt

te: > >> Martin, Authors, > >> > >> is there a reason that the draft says: > >> > >>     Registrant Contact: The IESG. > >> > >> vs the typical: > >> > >>    Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF. > >> > >&

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01

Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > In order not to be the bottleneck in the process, here is my AD review > of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01 > > > Editorial: > > - >An interface is identified by its

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

Hi, Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > On 12/16/2017 10:46 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > >> On 12/13/2017 04:26 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > >>>

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.txt

> Title : A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management > Authors : Andy Bierman > Martin Bjorklund > Jie Dong > Dan Romascanu > Filename: draft-ietf-n

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01.txt

ork Modeling WG of the IETF. > > Title : A YANG Data Model for IP Management > Author : Martin Bjorklund > Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01.txt > Pages : 32 > Date: 2017-12-17 > >

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01.txt

ork Modeling WG of the IETF. > > Title : A YANG Data Model for Interface Management > Author : Martin Bjorklund > Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01.txt > Pages : 47 > Date: 2017-12-17 >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

Hi, Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > > On 12/13/2017 04:26 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for reporting this.  I'll

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

Hi, Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did you think forwarding and mtu should be removed? In fact, I think I missed , so here's my diff: --- ex-get-data-reply.xml +++ ex-get-data-reply.xml @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ + true false

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > On 12/12/2017 08:20 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 12/08/2017 04:06 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Hi, Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 04:06 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:03:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com> wrote: > >>

Re: [netmod] YANG library structure

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:08:32AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > > > >> In talking to some others on this topic, they suggested using a library > > >> per > > >>

[netmod] YANG library structure

Hi, There has been quite a lot of discussion about the YANG library data model on the list. The authors of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis have tried to understand all arguments in the discussion, and provide a solution. Below are 3 solution proposals (we have discussed more, but they are

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:38:14PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft. > > > > Have the suggestions for including a collapsed view of uses been > included? No,

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

Hi Eric, "Eric Voit (evoit)" wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Several comments on the YANG model within rfc7223bis. > > list interface { > key "name"; > description > "The list of interfaces on the device. The status of an interface > is available

Re: [netmod] summary line in descriptions

Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 14:51 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > I am not sure design decisions of some web clients that provide clumsy > > > use

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >