Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-08.txt

Martin Bjorklund writes: > >> Sec. 1.1 >>o Made "when" and "if-feature" illegal on list keys, unless the >> parent is also conditional, and the condition matches the parent's >> condition. >> >> - This contradicts text in >>7.20.2: >>A leaf that is a

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the issues Y09 and Y57 were declared dead after intense discussions of > > various solution proposals. It later appeared to me that there is a >

[netmod] if-feature and default

Hi, I started a separate thread for this issue. The current YANG 1.1 text is incomplete wrt/ default-stmt. leaf broken { type enumeration { enum option1 { if-feature option1; } enum option2 { if-feature option2; } enum option3;

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

Hi, Why is this WG discussing issues that have been declared DEAD for various reasons? Optional keys break old clients, remember? There was not enough interest in adding these features. Andy On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-08.txt

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > >> Sec. 1.1 > >>o Made "when" and "if-feature" illegal on list keys, unless the > >> parent is also conditional, and the condition matches the parent's > >>

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-08.txt

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi Andy, > > ... > > > - Should 'may' be 'MAY'? > > Actually, since the enitire section 4 is not marked as: > >This non-normative section is intended to give a high-level overview >of YANG to first-time

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

Hi, I missed the earlier discussion around this topic prior to calling it DEAD. But here are some comments and ideas. There is interest in the security product business (access rules configuration for example). Some users don't want to deal with introducing keys that have to carry

[netmod] 答复: if-feature and default

Hi, I prefer A. Otherwise, if ‘option1’ is supported, the default value should be ‘option1’ and ‘option2’ is supported ,the default value should be ‘option2’, B cannot express it. Or more default stmts can be allowed. leaf broken { type enumeration { enum option1 {

Re: [netmod] if-feature and default

> On 02 Nov 2015, at 09:40, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 02 Nov 2015, at 02:16, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I started a separate thread for this issue. > > The

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

Hi, Earlier today Mach and I were asking Lada if we could have a config list w/o keys for our use case and he pointed us to this thread. This is exactly what we need. For some lists we don't need to operate on individual list members. We don't need to inject a member in front of another

Re: [netmod] if-feature and default

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 02 Nov 2015, at 02:16, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I started a separate thread for this issue. > > The current YANG 1.1 text is incomplete wrt/ default-stmt. > > > > leaf broken { >

Re: [netmod] leaf-list uniqueness requirement for non-config nodes

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:14:39PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Hi, > > > > RFC 6020 say: > > > >The values in a leaf-list MUST be unique. > > > > While this may have a justification for config true nodes (to allow

Re: [netmod] if-feature and default

> On 02 Nov 2015, at 02:16, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > I started a separate thread for this issue. > The current YANG 1.1 text is incomplete wrt/ default-stmt. > > leaf broken { > type enumeration { > enum option1 { >if-feature option1; >

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > Why is this WG discussing issues that have been declared DEAD for > various reasons? Optional keys break old clients, remember? Agreed. But I don't think the issue that Juergen brought up is related to Y09 (even though the mail subject says

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > the issues Y09 and Y57 were declared dead after intense discussions

Re: [netmod] 答复: if-feature and default

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:29 PM, fengchong (C) wrote: > > > Hi, > >I prefer A. > > > This would be OK with me. That way the default will be safe in all server variants. Andy > Otherwise, if ‘option1’ is supported, the default value should be > ‘option1’

Re: [netmod] config lists without keys (Y09) / non-unique leaf-lists (Y57)

> On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:43, Nabil wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I missed the earlier discussion around this topic prior to calling it DEAD. > But here are some comments and ideas. > > There is interest in the security product business (access rules > configuration for

[netmod] 答复: Tunnel Design Philosophy

Hi Aijun, I think your tunnel philosophy is reasonable. But there may be challenges in the real implemention to support the philosophy. The challenges are as follows: 1. There are too many types of IP tunnels such as IPv6/IPv4 over IPv4 tunnel, GRE Tunnel, IPSec/IKE Tunnel, L2TP Tunnel,etc.