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

- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:47 PM To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <bart.boga...@nokia.com> Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06 Hi, To summarize this, I think we have three o

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

to: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-entity-06 Hi Martin, On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, I need WG

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

datastore only (accurately) reports on what >>>>> is detected. >>>> If there is a mismatch and the server doesn't apply the configured >>>> values, then obviously the configured 'mfg-name' etc are not copied to >>>> . >>>> >>

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

onfigured serial number. > > But if this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave > such additional config objects to vendors, and simply make these three > nodes config false in ietf-hardware. > > > /martin > > > > > Regards, Bart > > >

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

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 Wilton Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:14 PM To: Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com>; netmod@ietf

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

y the configured >>> values, then obviously the configured 'mfg-name' etc are not copied to >>> . >>> >>> We do not see this as a special rule for this data but rather would >>>> apply a general rule: >>>> - if there is a ‘missing re

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

nal 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-entity-06 Hi Martin, On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorkl

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

e modelled as separate leafs. > We should have a config false leaf 'serial-num' that only contains the > detected value (if found), and a config true leaf 'config-serial-num' > or something, that contains the configured serial number. > > But if this is the case, I wonder if i

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

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-entity-06 Hi Martin, On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

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] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

m...@tail-f.com>; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06 > > Hi Martin, > > > On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle > > 'ser

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 of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

rds, 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-entity-06 Hi Martin, On 2

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

Hi Martin, On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the mail thread

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

On 12/21/2017 1:03 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:58:26PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:46PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, I need WG input on this issue. The

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

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:58:26PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder 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 > > >

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

Juergen Schoenwaelder 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 'model-name'. I think they should all > > be

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

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 'model-name'. I think they should all > be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the > mail thread

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

Hi, I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13"), I think they should all be configurable,

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

Dear all, One more comment, which I forgot in my AD review. The -state YANG module in the appendix should actually be "deprecated". Regards, Benoit 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

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

On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks. Only kept the relevant excerpts. - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933: entPhysicalSerialNum entPhysicalAlias entPhysicalAssetID entPhysicalUris For

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 Martin, Thanks. Only kept the relevant excerpts. - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933: entPhysicalSerialNum entPhysicalAlias entPhysicalAssetID entPhysicalUris For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me. serial-num is now "config

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

Hi, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> 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

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

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 believe that the RFC 2119 keywords are right on the following