Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?

On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote: >> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement >>>

Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?

On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote: > Hi, > > If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement > "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node. So, no rpc statement, and thereby no possibility to extend NETCONF with new RPCs? (Or to be precise, YANG would

Re: [netmod] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: (with DISCUSS)

On 2020-02-17 23:14, Christian Hopps wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2020, at 4:42 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: >> >> Hi - >> >> On 2/17/2020 11:47 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: On Feb 17, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - On 2/17/2020 3:15 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: ... > BTW, I did

Re: [netmod] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: (with DISCUSS)

On 2020-02-17 20:47, Christian Hopps wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote: >> >> Hi - >> >> On 2/17/2020 3:15 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: >> ... >>> BTW, I did look at the "SHOULD be avoided" (occurs twice that I saw) once dealing with LFs and CRs which lucky for us

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis: Comment on node-instance-identifier

On 2019-11-04 14:46, Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote: Hi, what about this wording : [...] A node-instance-identifier value is an unrestricted YANG instance-identifier expression or the special value '/', which refers to the entire accessible tree. [...] Yes, that

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis: Comment on node-instance-identifier

On 2019-11-04 11:32, Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote: Hi, this may be resolved by adding The special value '/' refers to the entire accessible tree. to the description statement. Does this work for you? Hm, it seems to me that this would conflict with this part of the description: A

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)

On 2019-07-17 14:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Its the first half of the sentence in my copy of RFC 7950. It believe that there is a problem with English language both in Qin's understanding of the original text (which is correct also in my opinion) and in his explanation of his

Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

efault' statement. You should of course still *describe* the behavior, and text in a 'description' statement is just as "normative" as a 'default' statement, "just" not machine-readable. --Per Regards, - Xufeng [Forwarding Per's reply to LSR mailing list] On Sun, Jun 9, 201

Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

On 2019-06-09 17:28, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: YANG does not have 'levels'. This seems to be an ISIS specific question you should ask on the ISIS list. AFAIK, this list is not restricted to discussions of what YANG "is" or "has", but also covers (at least) how YANG can be used, and what

Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length

On 2019-04-18 10:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 10:09 +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote: On 2019-04-18 09:40, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:35:51PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote: I wonder though, isn't

Re: [netmod] guidelines for top-level nodes in RFC 8407

your (original) question would in that case be "yes" (at least for YANG 1.1 modules...). --Per Hedeland ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Adding a pre-existing leaf into a new 'choice' - NBC change?

On 2018-11-22 16:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 15:31 +, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: >> From what I can understand below, none of this debate affects the conclusion >> that choice & case identifiers do *not* appear in: >> - leafref paths >> - must statements >>

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

On 2018-11-07 16:56, Qin Wu wrote: > -®öŸö- > Ñöº: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] ãh Per Hedeland > Ñ
öô: 2018t117å 15:57 > 6öº: Juergen Schoenwaelder > „
: NETMOD WG > ;˜: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis > > On 2018-11-07 09:34, Juergen Schoen

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

On 2018-11-07 09:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:49:54AM +, Yemin (Amy) wrote: For the range, if the defintion can cover the our range(0..99.), it will be acceptable. In your suggestion below, does that mean the base defintion is without range, while

Re: [netmod] removing a node from a grouping

On 2018-07-15 13:11, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Kent, I don't think that this is a valid use of augment - I thought that augment can only add news data nodes, not add extra sub statements to existing ones. Well, it is valid (though not if "foo" is a leaf), but you are right, and it doesn't do

Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

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, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-u

Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > So it seems the running code got it

Re: [netmod] derived-from() vs derived-from-or-self() in acl model

On 2018-02-26 23:02, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Feb 26, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> wrote: On 2018-02-26 20:20, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Feb 26, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com <mailto:p...@tail-f.com>> wrote: [Adding Cc todra

Re: [netmod] derived-from() vs derived-from-or-self() in acl model

On 2018-02-26 20:20, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Feb 26, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com <mailto:p...@tail-f.com>> wrote: [Adding Cc todraft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org>] On 2018-02-26 14:24, Ladislav

Re: [netmod] derived-from() vs derived-from-or-self() in acl model

[Adding Cc to draft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org] On 2018-02-26 14:24, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> A customer of ours using one of the draft versions of the >> ietf-access-control-list module reported that

[netmod] derived-from() vs derived-from-or-self() in acl model

derived from ipv4-acl-type. (Of course there shouldn't be any element either, but that's another thing.) So, is it the case that the derived-from()s should actually be derived-from-or-self()s, or is the example wrong? --Per Hedeland ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

tunnels and just pointers for supporting connections? I really appreciate your help, Igor -Original Message- From: Per Hedeland [mailto:p...@tail-f.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 5:21 PM To: Igor Bryskin Cc: m...@tail-f.com; xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com; netc...@ietf.org; netmod

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

not to a singls entity, but to a list of entities, and the client might want to expand all of them into the joint get response. Igor *From:*Per Hedeland *To:*Martin Bjorklund, *Cc:*Igor Bryskin,xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com,netc...@ietf.org,netmod@ietf.org, *Date:*2017-10-09 15:12:22 *Subject:*Re

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

"joint with" list specified). We think that this would allow for the client to optimize the number of request-response iterations depending on application/use case. Regards, Igor /martin -Original Message- From: Per Hedeland [mailto:p...@tail-f.com] Sent: Monday, Oct

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

to the get request the server needs to > provide the entire body of a datastore node pointed > to by a leafref or just a pointer to said node, so that the node's body could > be retrieved by a subsequent separate request. This is requested by > implementors who want to optimise rhe numbe

Re: [netmod] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

On 2017-10-06 23:11, Xufeng Liu wrote: During the design team discussion for TE and MPLS YANG modeling, we have received a request from implementers: How to minimize the number of NETCONF/RESTCONF RPCs to improve operation efficiency? Especially for the case when the operator or client software

Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1

On 2017-08-29 15:40, Lou Berger wrote: > > > On August 29, 2017 9:03:22 AM Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> wrote: > >> On 2017-08-29 14:34, Lou Berger wrote: >>> On 08/29/2017 03:37 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>

Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1

On 2017-08-29 14:34, Lou Berger wrote: > On 08/29/2017 03:37 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Lou Berger wrote: >>> Lada, >>> >>> >>> On 8/28/2017 10:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Lou Berger píae v Po 28. 08. 2017 v 09:40 -0400: > Lada, > > On 8/28/2017 9:30 AM,

Re: [netmod] Potential additions to rfc6087bis: RegEx guidelines

On 2017-08-24 17:54, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> writes: > >> I strongly agree with all of Juergen's statements, and disagree also >> with the suggestion to include the parts of the text that he didn't >> specifically disagree with. And

Re: [netmod] Potential additions to rfc6087bis: RegEx guidelines

I strongly agree with all of Juergen's statements, and disagree also with the suggestion to include the parts of the text that he didn't specifically disagree with. And I'd like to add that the "lack of XSD support" argument is pretty weak - there exists at least one freely available

Re: [netmod] Pattern statements [was Re: Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0]

On 2017-08-23 20:09, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 08/23/2017 03:36 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:23:12PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: 1) Email address. I understand that the full regex to validate all email addresses is very complex, but checking that it at least

Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7317 (4795)

On 2016-09-05 12:34, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > RFC Errata System wrote: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7317, >> "A YANG Data Model for System Management". >> >> -- >> You may review the report below and at:

Re: [netmod] RFC 7950 on The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language

On 2016-09-02 00:14, Phil Shafer wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: >> See Section 1.1 (Summary of Changes from RFC 6020) > > I may be missing something but it says: > > o Allow "choice" as a shorthand "case" statement (see > Section 7.9.2). > > which is definitely in 6020. No, it

Re: [netmod] leafref value space and constraint

On 2016-06-08 09:48, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < >> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:08:56AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:52

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On 2016-04-29 17:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:32, Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> wrote: >> >> On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> wrote

Re: [netmod] restricted enumeration

On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland <p...@tail-f.com> wrote: >> >> On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>> <j.scho

Re: [netmod] actions and keyless lists

On 2016-04-05 22:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 05 Apr 2016, at 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> >> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 05 Apr 2016, at 11:09, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: >

Re: [netmod] VRFY :45: better conformance mechanism

On 2015-05-21 19:46, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Per Hedeland p...@tail-f.com wrote: On 2015-05-21 19:14, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote: RFC 6020 also states that must and when expessions are XPath 1.0