Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04

2017-01-13 Thread Lou Berger
All, This draft is adopted. Authors, please republish as draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-00 as being the only change. Thank you, Lou PS my apologies for not sending this last month. On 12/12/2016 6:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > All, > > This is start of a two week* poll on making >

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

2017-01-13 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:05:07PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > So this thread is questioning why YANG allows constraints on config=false > > data nodes. > > > > The point I am trying to

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

2017-01-13 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, IMO the YANG data model constraints are too domain-specific to generalize. If the designer is adding a constraint (must, when. min-elements -- makes no difference) then if must matter to that specific data model. It is not a SHOULD, but a MUST. Otherwise YANG has no value to data model

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

2017-01-13 Thread Robert Wilton
[keeping netmod, bcc netconf] On 12/01/2017 22:05, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Martin Bjorklund > wrote: Ladislav Lhotka > wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2017, at 19:44, Juergen

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

2017-01-13 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 12 Jan 2017, at 23:05, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > On 12 Jan 2017, at 19:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > >

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

2017-01-13 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 12 Jan 2017, at 22:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:20:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jan 2017, at 19:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan

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

2017-01-13 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 12 Jan 2017, at 22:59, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jan 2017, at 19:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:38:46AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:

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

2017-01-13 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:05:07PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > So this thread is questioning why YANG allows constraints on config=false > data nodes. > The point I am trying to make is that for configuration data, we have a clear model what validation means and when it is applied. The basic

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

2017-01-13 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 13 Jan 2017, at 09:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:05:07PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> So this thread is questioning why YANG allows constraints on config=false >> data nodes. >> > > The point I am trying to