(ambtripa)
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:30 PM
To: Andy Bierman; Juergen Schoenwaelder; t. petch; Martin Bjorklund;
netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
On 8/27/2015 8:23 AM, Andy
; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
Alexander Clemm (alex) a...@cisco.com wrote:
- As Martin mentioned, clearly by allowing to mount you are decoupling
schema information and instance population. Regarding the issue of
validation, this can be addressed by several ways.
I think
Alexander Clemm (alex) a...@cisco.com wrote:
- As Martin mentioned, clearly by allowing to mount you are
decoupling schema information and instance population. Regarding
the issue of validation, this can be addressed by several ways.
I think that the mount point effectively works as a
On 08/27/2015 02:42 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
The flat sea of YANG modules brings a different set of issues and I
am unsure what they are;
This is main problem I have. What the heck is the problem we are trying
to fix?
The first, but not only problem, is today's ~200 top level
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de
To: t. petch ie...@btconnect.com
Cc: rwil...@cisco.com; Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com;
netmod@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, August
I like the idea of relocatable modules. It is almost to say everything defined
by the IETF should be a grouping, allowing others to assemble the pieces as
they see fit. I do not think it makes sense for IETF to define an uber
structure, especially using a language mandating forever backwards
From: Andy Bierman, Friday, August 21, 2015 10:28 AM
snip
Currently we have a proprietary way of relocating YANG modules, and
ODL has its mount, and I think Andy has some other mechanism. Maybe
the time has come to standardize how mount works, and maybe then also
standardize the list of
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 20/08/2015 09:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
wrote:
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:22, Andy Bierman
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 20/08/2015 09:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
wrote:
On 21 Aug 2015, at 15:01, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 20/08/2015 09:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
wrote:
Robert
Hi Martin,
On 20/08/2015 09:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:22, Andy Bierman wrote:
This is how languages like SMIv2 and YANG
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:22, Andy Bierman wrote:
This is how languages like SMIv2 and YANG work.
A conceptual object is given a permanent
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:22, Andy Bierman wrote:
This is how languages like SMIv2 and YANG work.
A conceptual object is given a
Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
On 18/08/2015 18:22, Andy Bierman wrote:
This is how languages like SMIv2 and YANG work.
A conceptual object is given a permanent home within the tree of
object identifiers.
Moving data is very expensive, since any clients working with the old
To: Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.net
mailto:jonat...@hansfords.net
Cc: NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.org
mailto:netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
As someone sharing responsibilities for guiding a number
of Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)
eina...@cisco.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 5:29 AM
To: Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.net
Cc: NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
As someone sharing responsibilities for guiding a number of development teams
both
of Einar
Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) eina...@cisco.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 5:29 AM
To: Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.net
Cc: NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
As someone sharing responsibilities for guiding a number of development
teams
Hi -
From: Andy Bierman
Sent: Aug 18, 2015 10:22 AM
To: Robert Wilton
Cc: NETMOD Working Group
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Robert Wilton rwil...@cisco.com wrote:
...
I think that having fixed paths may end up being too restrictive.
This is how
netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
As someone sharing responsibilities for guiding a number of development teams
both defining new models and implementing to some already defined models in
this area, I can only agree with this addition to what I said earlier.
Cheers
the individual modules, it is how
to put them together to best manage a device (let alone a system).
Jonathan
- Original Message -
From: Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)
To:Andy Bierman
Cc:NETMOD Working Group
Sent:Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:10:15 +
Subject:Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
Andy,
I agree
-
From:
Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) eina...@cisco.com
To:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com
Cc:
NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.org
Sent:
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:10:15 +
Subject:
Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
Andy,
I agree that there is a need for organization of models, but I
...@hansfords.net, NETMOD Working Group
netmod@ietf.orgmailto:netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com wrote:
I think there is agreement that there is a problem. The YANG Routing Design
Team
To: Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.netmailto:jonat...@hansfords.net
Cc: NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.orgmailto:netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
As someone sharing responsibilities for guiding a number of development teams
both defining new models and implementing to some
netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Einar Nilsen-Nygaard
(einarnn) eina...@cisco.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 5:29 AM
To: Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.net
Cc: NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
As someone sharing responsibilities
+
Subject:Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
Andy,
I agree that there is a need for organization of models, but I
don’t have a firm position
on draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model
or draft-bierman-netmod-yang-package. But we absolutely need
*something* to help
...@cisco.commailto:eina...@cisco.com
To:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com
Cc:
NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.orgmailto:netmod@ietf.org
Sent:
Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:10:15 +
Subject:
Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
Andy,
I agree that there is a need for organization of models
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:01 AM, t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com
To: t.petch ie...@btconnect.com
Cc: NETMOD Working Group netmod@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 4:10 PM
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:48 AM, t.petch
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 04:51:28PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Section 1.1 in
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt
lists the goals of a generic model structure that will accommodate most
modern network devices. I guess you don’t agree that these are
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Lou Berger lber...@labn.net wrote:
Andy,
Have you thought through implications / possibilities for existing
models, e.g., interfaces?
First we have to define various forms of relocation.
(1) Aggregation of datastores
The simplest form is aggregation.
I completely agree. We definitely will make use if this in the new models
being developed in the routing area.
Lou
On July 26, 2015 1:50:00 PM Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
I think being able to place a given model anywhere in the device tree
would be useful and this would allow
Hi Acee,
I agree that Relocatable YANG would be very useful, and have been
thinking about the problem for awhile. I think the key is to precisely
define a protocol-independent document root for each of the various
YANG XPath contexts. In most cases the expression can be
automatically relocated
Andy,
Have you thought through implications / possibilities for existing models,
e.g., interfaces?
Thanks,
Lou
On July 26, 2015 4:41:32 PM Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi Acee,
I agree that Relocatable YANG would be very useful, and have been
thinking about the problem for
On 20 Jul 2015, at 23:00, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
Lada,
Y34 is closed and I have not seen any new argument here that indicates
we made a major mistake with the resolution of Y34. As such, Y34
remains closed.
Of course, I was expecting this
On 21 Jul 2015, at 09:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:16:46AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 20 Jul 2015, at 23:00, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
Lada,
Y34 is closed and I have
On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:45, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
Hi,
after listening to the presentation of
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering
whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful.
The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces
Hi,
after listening to the presentation of
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering
whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful.
The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but their tree in
fact is
+--rw device
+--rw info
|
On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:00, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls?
(The original and a
Lada,
Y34 is closed and I have not seen any new argument here that indicates
we made a major mistake with the resolution of Y34. As such, Y34
remains closed.
If you want to discuss new ideas to relocate or symlink data models,
please do so in a separate thread. (And no, we do not accept new
38 matches
Mail list logo
