Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On 10/01/2017 15:30, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > I think itt is not

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > I think itt is not realistic to say that

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

Hi, On 09/01/2017 21:17, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > I am more

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: I think itt is

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > I think it is better to have a human decide what is in the module > > instead of relying on a pyang plugin to generate some additional module > > that follows some simplistic pattern. > > It may be simple, but I’m

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

Hi, I approve of all of your proposed changes. However, I'm still not sure that "[implementing] the minimum set of functionality that is contained in at least three vendor implementations" is a sensible policy. The fact that three vendors produce devices that support a feature doesn't

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

> I think it is better to have a human decide what is in the module > instead of relying on a pyang plugin to generate some additional module > that follows some simplistic pattern. It may be simple, but I’m thinking that’s only because it’s not tricky ;) > Of course this solution only works

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Alex Campbell wrote: > Hi, > > I approve of all of your proposed changes. > > However, I'm still not sure that "[implementing] the minimum set of > functionality that is contained in at least three vendor implementations" > is a

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > I think that there may be a better way here: The data modelers design the > model on the assumption that an operational state datastore will be > present. We can then use a pyang plugin to generate an extra YANG model

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > > Until the basic show-stoppers are solved, the redundant opstate objects > are not important. > > > Removing the foo-state objects means they are now invisible wrt/ YANG > constraints > > > (must, when,

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > I believe that shortening tranistion pain is in the longer term better > than prociding tools that at the end just extend the transition pain. > > That is a good goal, but ending up with a

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

I believe that shortening tranistion pain is in the longer term better than prociding tools that at the end just extend the transition pain. /js On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:08:47PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > I think that there may be a better way here: The data modelers design the > model on

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

> On 9 Jan 2017, at 21:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> I am more concerned about use cases that are not known so far, and so I am >> against standardizing this (or any other)

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < >>>

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On 10/01/2017 17:25, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon,

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I think itt is not realistic to say that datastores are optional. > > > > e.g. leaf: If there is a standard way to

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On 09/01/2017 12:38, Lou Berger wrote: On January 9, 2017 7:25:24 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: The current document involves quite a lot of hand-waving, and that's why I was also reluctant to accept it as a WG standard-track deliverable. IMO I think we should do and

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 10/01/2017 17:25, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

I think that there may be a better way here: The data modelers design the model on the assumption that an operational state datastore will be present. We can then use a pyang plugin to generate an extra YANG model that contains the missing state leaves that would be required for the split

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

Hi Clyde, The LC period has ended. While we only received two reviews, I think both were quite good and thorough and, as far as I can tell, entail needing a non-trivial update to the draft. My thoughts are that you should continue working with Alex and Andy to ensure their issues are

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

> On 10 Jan 2017, at 02:30, Robert Varga wrote: > > On 01/09/2017 11:32 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Alex Campbell >> > wrote: >> >>I don't see how a "when" statement modified

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:20:35AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 10 Jan 2017, at 09:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> I think we need protocol and YANG specs

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

> On 10 Jan 2017, at 09:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> I think we need protocol and YANG specs that are not tied to any particular >> model and that are thus capable of