On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 07:23:16PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> Modules that have to be implemented can be imported only once. Adding this
> information to the import statement for such modules is IMO more effective
> than
> having it in the module description. I don't get how it could
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:33:08AM +, Alexander Clemm wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> thank you for your comments! Please find replies inline,
>
> --- Alex
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
> > Sent:
Hi,
this is a good document that deserves to go forward. Some comments...
- In the introduction, you may want to mention that applied config
often differs from config because applied config includes stuff that
was learned or generated by the system (e.g., IP addresses obtained
via DHCP or
Benoit,
thanks for the clarification.
I still believe that the approach taken is wrong. I doubt that network
operators are interested in an assembly level approach for expressing
threshold triggers. I am not sure xpath is the answer either. What was
perhaps reasonable to try in the 90s (RMON,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 01:40:13PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> See below as BALAZS2.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Schönwälder, Jürgen
> Sent: 2020. február 12., szerda 10:07
> To: Balázs Lengyel
> Cc: Kent Watsen ; NETMOD Working Group
>
> Subject: [Not
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:18AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> This email begins a 2 week working group adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-06
>
> Please voice your support or objections before the poll completes on
> March 3rd.
I am against adoption
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:12:47AM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> I'm also not convinced of how many implementations would properly honour the
> XML regex property categories, e.g., if the pattern statement has been
> translated to another regex engine.
>
That's a weird argument. If
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:40:30AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2020, at 9:07 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> >
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > Please see inline ...
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >>
-Original Message-
> > From: iesg On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
> > Sent: 13 February 2020 18:39
> > To: Alexey Melnikov
> > Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-module-t...@ietf.org;
> > netmod@ietf.org; Joel Jaeggli ; Christian Hopps
> >
And a longer term solution might be to define a YANG Net-Unicode
string datatype that can be used in all situations where
non-normalized strings may cause problems. The problem (if one
agrees it is one) is likely much bigger than just YANG tags,
there likely are many uses of YANG strings where
Trimming things down where things are clear, not fixing the quoting
problems...
> * Abstract
>
> I think we should avoid referring to some operation. Here is a
> proposal of a rewrite:
>
> OLD
>
>running server available. This document specifies a standard file
>format for YANG
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 12:41:23PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> This begins a two-week Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06. The WGLC ends on Jan 21.
> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
>
> Positive comments, e.g.,
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 11:39:31AM +, Jonathan wrote:
> > Since is the only way to expose config false nodes for
> > an NMDA server, it is kind of mandatory as soon as you have config
> > false nodes to expose.
> RFC 6241 describes as retrieving "running configuration and device
> state
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 05:12:30PM +, Jonathan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been reading through RFC 8342 and have a number of questions I
> couldn't resolve after a couple of passes through. Can anyone advise?
> The RFC states "The startup configuration datastore may not be supported by
> all
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:23:27AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> I don't see how YANG syntax defines this. If a module imports
> ietf-netconf-acm, it could be because
>
> - it just uses a typedef, such as "node-instance-identifier", and then
> ietf-netconf-acm needn't be implemented (but
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:15:25PM +, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>
> There is no technical reason at all to have MAC addresses represented as
> pattern constrained strings and not "binary" of length 6 (as it was in
> SMIv2 MIBs) either. There is no technical reason for ethertype to be
>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:29:41PM +, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>
> [2] Some of the types are based on strings with complex lexical
> representation with canonical form specified in description statement
> which is neither scalable nor automation friendly. For example the
> "ethertype-type"
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 07:42:06AM +, john heasley wrote:
>In addition,the "factory-reset" RPC might also be used
>to trigger some other restoring and resetting tasks such as files
>cleanup, restarting the node or some of the software processes,
>setting some security
:
> 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?
>
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?
/js
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:17:25PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Should the "node-instance-identify" type specify how
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:25:06AM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes I agree. I don't recall but I also suspect the motivation was
> > simple mapping to the MIB. (mapping a zero-length string to/from an
> > optional leaf is straightforward).
>
> Is it too late to fix? No reason to
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:35:19PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > However, I remember that we had a discussion on whether we should
> > accept erratas on YANG modules or not. The YANG module exist in
> > various places outside of the RFC, such as the IANA site, and it won't
> > be corrected there.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:42:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Tarek Saad wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are wondering if “ordered by user” has any effect on a (config
> > false)/state list?
> > Given RFC6020 specifies “ordered by system” as the default order, does
> > this mean it is
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:42:44PM +0200, Dmytro Shytyi wrote:
>
> [Dmytro] Yes we can augment additional nodes into "ietf-interfaces" it is
> what we do in the draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04 :
>
>
> augment "/ietf-nfv:ucpe/ietf-if:interfaces/ietf-if:interface" {
>list ports {
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:28:03PM +0200, Dmytro Shytyi wrote:
>
> Cut and paste to change the 'nesting' is _not_ proper usage of
> YANG. The value of YANG is that objects with the same semantics are
> predictable, this gives you interoperability. By copying modules to
> other places (and
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:53:42PM +0200, Dmytro Shytyi wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
>
>
> We are interested in some specific functionality provided by RFC 8343 yang
> model.
>
> So we derivied the yang model from RFC 8343, modified it and gave module name
> , prefix with some modifications
So we need to extend and clarify the terminology but this can't be
done via an errata. Looking at the RFC 8342 terms, we may need to also
define 'module schema', which is pretty much what the current 'schema
tree' definition is (or we just keep that definition).
(I am not sure 'YANG schema' as
I would be extremely careful with a change here. We would need to
check carefully all places where "schema tree" is used today to be
sure that accepting the errata does not accidentally change
semantics.
It may turn out that we use "schema tree" sometimes as "schema tree of
a module" and
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 10:04:56AM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> The YANG instance data draft provides some other choices:
> (1) (External Method) Don't define the schema, just assume that clients know
> what it will be for YANG packages. E.g. it would be specified in the YANG
>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 08:17:33AM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> To use the "tags:tag" typedef, ietf-yang-package had an import on
> "ietf-module-tags" which both defines a tags type and also a "module-tags"
> container as well. I want the typedef, but not the container, because I
>
-0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> > On Sep 28, 2019, at 1:57 AM, Schönwälder, Jürgen
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mahesh,
> >
> > are these frequently needed? Are there YANG modules that use these
> > fields already?
>
> Over in ETSI
Hi Mahesh,
are these frequently needed? Are there YANG modules that use these
fields already?
/js
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:39:54PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Is there a plan to add more URI syntax components in rfc6991bis? I know there
> is a typedef for uri, but I
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:44:01AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> The IETF has completely punted the problem of converting data for a
> configuration datastore to the schema tree for .
I am not sure. The model consists of the applied
configuration plus any config false extras. NMDA simplifies
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:27:17PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > Sure, one can discuss whether this feature is useful or harmful
> > but the only way to officially remove this is to create a new
> > specification and to run it through the IETF process.
>
> I do insist that the wording in
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:45:26AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >
> > > >o There MUST be no nodes tagged with "when" present if the "when"
> > >
> > > > condition evaluates to "false" in the data tree.
> > >
> > >
> > > It also says in 8.2:
> > >
> > >o If a request
35 matches
Mail list logo
