Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

Regarding validation, section 3.10 refers to pyang tool. Since the set of tools might change in the future, shouldn't the reference be to the yangvalidator url or something along those lines (instead of an exhaustive list which may change)? I think there is a nit in section 2.4, the '.' after

Re: [netmod] NMDA - different valid keys for config vs state

I thought this had been discussed previously but couldn’t find the email. IMO option 1) makes more sense, the key range should be a superset of config and oper since the model applies to both. Don’t know if there’s any mechanism which allows for different range per datastore. Regards, Reshad.

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

> wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) < rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 2018-10-10, 9:59 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" < netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of m...@tai

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

Hi Rob, From: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 11:56 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Cc: Martin Bjorklund , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON Yet the examples in s

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

klund wrote: > >>> Robert Wilton wrote: > >>>> On 11/10/2018 11:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>>>> Andy Bierman wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Martin Bjorklund > >>>>>

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

We can't time travel and as you mentioned option A has consistency within each encoding, so I'm also for option A. Regards, Reshad. On 2018-10-18, 6:30 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: Hi, Going back to the most urgent issue, what is this WG's recommendation

[netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext

Hi, * In section 2.2 1st paragraph the text says “…moved to this document and updated”. It would be clearer if there was a list/description of what’s been updated in 2.2 or a reference to another section where the update to RC yang-data is described. * In example in A.2, should

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

On 2018-11-09, 8:37 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:42:20PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 06:50:58AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

From: netmod on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' Date: Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:38 PM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , Martin Bjorklund , 'Andy Bierman' , NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:15 AM,

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01.txt

On 2018-11-09, 8:51 PM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > > > On 2018-11-09, 8:37 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" > wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

On 2018-10-04, 4:22 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:09:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have. > Interoperability good. Agreed. > > But why YANG-patch and not

Re: [netmod] Quirky YANG

Are YD reviews optional for IETF YANG modules? I assumed it was mandatory. On 2018-10-03, 12:11 PM, "netmod on behalf of tom petch" wrote: I wonder if anyone else on this list has looked at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/ currently in IETF Last Call.

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll

Support. On 2018-10-08, 7:39 AM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: All, This is start of a two week poll on making draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-04 a working group document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF? Regards, Reshad. On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

r anyone else object? Kent // chair -Original Message----- From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 8:21 AM To: Kent Watsen , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda

Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

On 2018-10-10, 9:59 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > Hi, > > > > While reviewing restconf-notif, I saw this example: > > > >{ > > "ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Quirky YANG

Thanks Mahesh. So the IESG is supposed to ask for YD review at this point for draft-ietf-softwire-yang? From: Mahesh Jethanandani Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 7:38 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Cc: tom petch , "netmod@ietf.org" , YANG Doctors Subject: Re: [y

Re: [netmod] yang-next meeting at IETF 104?

I am interested in attending the virtual meeting(s) and the in-person meeting in Prague (Monday-Thursday preferably). On 2019-01-14, 5:27 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: >> PS: I've been too busy to setup a virtual meeting for us to finish the >> review of the YANG-next

[netmod] draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang

Hi, Took a look at the draft, some comments/questions: 1. Use of instance-identifier, so we need to list all instances individually? 2. Is the only possible action a set operation? In some cases an action such as reset would be desirable, have you considered RPC? 3. There are errors in

Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-01

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document. From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:33 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-01 This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:

Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-wu-netmod-factory-default-02

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document. +1 to what various people said with regards to simplifications needed in the document. From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:35 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] Adoption poll for

Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6991-bis-00

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document. From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:31 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6991-bis-00 This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

From: netmod on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' Date: Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 9:59 PM To: Kent Watsen Cc: NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kent Watsen mailto:kent%2bi...@watsen.net>> wrote: Hi Andy, > Andy Bierman

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

As contributor, I support adoption of this document by the WG. Regards, Reshad. From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 4:22 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02 Seeing as how we all need to read this draft

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Hi, On 2019-03-20, 2:12 PM, "netmod on behalf of Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote: Hi Martin, > > > I.e. you don't think that we should be using semantic versioning at > > all > > My objection is that I don't agree with the problem statement and I don't think

Re: [netmod] can a leaf of type "empty" have a "default" value?

Hi Kent, From https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.11 An empty type cannot have a default value. Regards, Reshad. From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Friday, May 17, 2019 at 3:53 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] can a leaf of type "empty" have a "default" value?

Re: [netmod] Problems with lint validation

Balazs, we ran into the same issue last year. If you look at the ticket in the attached email, yanglint has a fix for the non-config leaf issue but OpenSUSE doesn’t have a version of libyang with the fix. Regards, Reshad. From: netmod on behalf of Balázs Lengyel Date: Tuesday, August 13,

Re: [netmod] Adoption of versioning design team docs

As author/DT member, I support adoption. From: netmod on behalf of Lou Berger Date: Monday, March 2, 2020 at 5:30 PM To: NETMOD Group Cc: "netmod-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] Adoption of versioning design team docs Hi, We'd like to start a two week adoption call for the set of

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-03

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft On 2020-03-02, 5:14 PM, "Lou Berger" wrote: Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of preparation for WG Adoption: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? Please state either:

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-02

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft On 2020-03-02, 5:13 PM, "Lou Berger" wrote: Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of preparation for WG Adoption: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? Please state either:

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft On 2020-03-02, 5:13 PM, "Lou Berger" wrote: Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of preparation for WG Adoption: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? Please state either:

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-semver-01

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft On 2020-03-02, 5:13 PM, "Lou Berger" wrote: Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of preparation for WG Adoption: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? Please state either:

Re: [netmod] [Netmod-ver-dt] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-schema-comparison-00

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. On 2020-03-02, 5:14 PM, "Netmod-ver-dt on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of preparation for WG Adoption: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

[netmod] Revision labels for submodules (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

ge/clarify the text. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Martin, We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick off separate therads for each issue. https://github.com/netmod-w

[netmod] No descendent statements to input/output can be reordered (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

uot;rpc" and "action"). Sounds good. JTBC, by descendent you're referring to data nodes (children, grandchildren etc) and not to statements like type and description? Also, could you refresh our memory why the decision was made to preserve order of input/output data nodes? Regard

[netmod] Typos and smaller issues (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

ion" information, from when the node had status "deprecated, which is still relevant. HERE ---^ o 8 s/CODE ENDS>// Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahm

[netmod] bool v/s empty for new leafs deprecated-nodes and obsolete-nodes (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

The bool v/s empty philosophical battle. I'm ok with boolean, I don't know if others have strong opinions on this. If we go with boolean, if the leaf nodes are absent then the behaviour would be unspecified. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrah

[netmod] Revision label in filename (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

etmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Martin, We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick off separate therads for each issue. https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aupdated-mod-rev-handl

[netmod] rev:status-description (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

Use of rev:status-description makes this easier to handle. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Martin, We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick off separate therads for ea

[netmod] Interpreting revision labels as YANG semantic version numbers (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

being used, or they have to guess, or the module would need another statement to declare what versioning scheme is being used. Maybe we should go with the latter. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Martin, We've opened

[netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

les using branching, modified semver still works. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Martin, We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick off separate therads for each issue.

[netmod] Grammar for new extensions (WAS Re: mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)

. For substatements, isn't this specified in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.19.1? Can you clarify if that's not what you're looking for? Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi Martin, We've opened issues to

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

On 2020-03-30, 7:22 PM, "Kent Watsen" wrote: > Even though we are debating/discussing whether iETF moduels should use YANG semver (aka modified semver), please note that there is interest from other publishers of YANG modules to use semver or YANG semver. Details? I was

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

Ivory, William" Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 3:40 AM To: "mbj+i...@4668.se" , "jason.ste...@nokia.com" , "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements Apologies if thi

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

? I don’t think the “semver" label has been fully justified relative to the disruption I perceive it may cause. Regards, Reshad. From: Kent Watsen Date: Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:49 PM To: Martin Björklund Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: R

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

rtin Björklund > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:40 PM > > To: rrah...@cisco.com > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label > > statements > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrah

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" wrote: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > Hi, > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/45 > > o 7.1 > > The text says: >

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

On 2020-03-30, 2:20 PM, "Martin Björklund" wrote: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" wrote: > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > > Hi, > >

Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements

From: 'Andy Bierman' Date: Monday, March 30, 2020 at 2:51 PM To: Martin Björklund Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label statements On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Martin Björklund mailto:mbj%2bi.

Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)

From: netmod on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 2:07 PM To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" Cc: NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: > On Apr 1, 2020,

Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)

From: 'Andy Bierman' Date: Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Cc: Italo Busi , "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" , NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) mail

Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)

Hi, From: Italo Busi Date: Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , 'Andy Bierman' , "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" Cc: NetMod WG Subject: RE: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D) Reshad, My doubt and, if I understand well also Andy’s questio

Re: [netmod] versioning procedures (RFC vs. I-D)

development. It might not be relevant/important during the multiple initial revisions. But when we reach (WG)LC, I think it’s an important piece of information. Regards, Reshad. From: 'Andy Bierman' Date: Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 12:02 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Cc: Italo B

Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-label scheme

Hi, On 2020-04-28, 11:25 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund" wrote: Hi, "Reshad Rahman \(rrahman\)" wrote: > Hi, > > There was a > discussion<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=%22Interpreting%20revis

Re: [netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-label scheme

full speed ahead to support an open ended number of versioning schemes? /js (who probably should have kept silent) On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:42:04PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > Hi, > > There was a discussion<https://mailarchive.ietf.org

[netmod] yang-module-versioning: revision-label scheme

Hi, There was a discussion on the need to have an extension which specifies which versioning scheme a module is using. The authors have identified 2 options:

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)

I finally caught up to this thread. I agree with concerns raised by Radek and Balazs, but as others have mentioned an errata doesn’t seem to be the right medium for this. OTOH, yang-next might be too far away…. Could we do an update to RF7950 just for this? I realize it’s lots of work/overhead

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)

Makes sense, it’s good with me. Regards, Reshad. From: netmod on behalf of "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:34 PM To: Kent Watsen , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031) Hi Kent, Thanks for creating the issue. I think

Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?

I don’t know the history on this but the intent is to have action tied to a data node. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.15 The difference between an action and an rpc is that an action is tied to a node in the datastore, whereas an rpc is not. When an action is invoked,

Re: [netmod] status-description

statement in yang-next should not be an issue? Regards, Reshad. From: 'Andy Bierman' Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:32 PM To: Martin Björklund Cc: Balazs Lengyel , "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] status-description On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:38 AM Martin

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

; -Original Message- > From: Martin Björklund > Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 11:54 AM > To: rrah...@cisco.com > Cc: netmod@ietf.org; Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules > &g

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

posing this is ideal. But I think we should leave it as acceptable. Rgds, Jason > -Original Message----- > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:46 AM > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ; Martin > Björklund

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

change. That gets difficult if you consider simply moving a leaf from one sub-module to another (without changing anything else about it - its context, etc). Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-27, 5:44 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi, https://github.

Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename

mentations which search by date? Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-27, 5:44 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: Hi, https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/50 o 3.3 In the filename of a YANG mo

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

sible to manage the "packaging" of submodules and modules out > of band or other mechanisms. > > OpenConfig, for example, uses submodules but does not currently include > by version. I'm not proposing this is ideal. But I think we should leave it as

Re: [netmod] Proposed YANG semver revision-label guidelines (draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver)

Jan, do you have an issue with the choice of the letter or its semantics? It has been mentioned that it's confusing to have 'm' and 'M'. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-05-13, 10:45 AM, "netmod on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke)" wrote: > On May 13, 2020, at 10:04, Jan Lindblad

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

Hi, On 2020-05-09, 11:57 AM, "Martin Björklund" wrote: Martin Björklund wrote: > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2020-05-08, 5:12 PM, "Martin Björklund" wrote: > > > >

Re: [netmod] mbj review of draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

Hi Martin, We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below). Will kick off separate therads for each issue. https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aupdated-mod-rev-handling Regards, Reshad. On 2020-03-10, 3:31 PM, "netmod on behalf of

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

Hi, On 2020-05-08, 5:12 PM, "Martin Björklund" wrote: Hi, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: > Hi, > > This came up during this week's meeting. We briefly discussed whether > there's a need to version sub-modules or can we restrict

Re: [netmod] Choice for filtering YANG imports

Hi Rob, all, My concern with "rev:revision-or-derived" is that an NBC change to an imported module can "break" the importing module without any action on the part of the owner of the importing module. So yes I would want to use "rev:revision-or-compatible-derived", despite the coupling

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

ust posted -05 (thanks, Yingzhen, for doublechecking my updates). --- Alex on behalf of coauthors On 9/7/2020 7:06 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > > Review of rev -04 by Reshad Rahman > > The document is clear and well-written. While some iss

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

Review of rev -04 by Reshad Rahman The document is clear and well-written. While some issues have been identified, they can be resolved quickly. Issues 1. YANG model P8, for “leaf xpath-filter”, add reference to RFC6021. There should also be a normative reference to RFC6021 (as

Re: [netmod] Follow-up: impact of changing an import statement

Inline. On 2020-08-01, 2:47 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: On 2020-08-01, 1:39 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 02:51:54AM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > WG, > > Following up from

Re: [netmod] Follow-up: impact of changing an import statement

Inline. On 2020-08-01, 2:47 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: On 2020-08-01, 1:39 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 02:51:54AM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > WG, > > Following up from

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

elements. Regards, Reshad. From: Yingzhen Qu Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 1:07 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Alexander L Clemm , "yang-doct...@ietf.org" Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-d

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

"edit-id": "2", "operation": "create", "target": "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description", "value": {

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

Looks good, no new issues. Regards, Reshad. From: Yingzhen Qu Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:49 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , Alexander L Clemm , "yang-doct...@ietf.org" Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

ference to RFC6021 > (as per RFC8407) Thanks. Adding reference to 6991 (as 6021 is obsoleted). Regards, Reshad. From: Alexander L Clemm Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 at 3:48 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "yang-doct...@ietf.org" Cc: "last-c...@ietf

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

Hi Alex, This addresses my comment/concern. Regards, Reshad. From: Alexander L Clemm Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 at 3:43 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "yang-doct...@ietf.org" Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

, September 15, 2020 at 7:31 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "yang-doct...@ietf.org" Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call review o

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

02PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one manufacturer." > > As for the details, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 > > Regards, > Reshad. >

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

Hi, I think what you're referring to is the use of "loopback interfaces". The loopback addresses Juergen was referring to do not belong to loopback interfaces. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-07-20, 11:30 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) Sent

Re: [netmod] Follow-up: impact of changing an import statement

On 2020-08-01, 1:39 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 02:51:54AM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > WG, > > Following up from the discussions during NETMOD meeting on Thursday. One of the main open topics is what to do

Re: [netmod] submodules the hidden benefits

Indeed https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/26 On 2020-08-05, 5:22 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev" wrote: On 05/08/2020 18.48, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > I personally meanwhile believe that sub-modules add complexity with > little extra value but this

[netmod] Follow-up: impact of changing an import statement

WG, Following up from the discussions during NETMOD meeting on Thursday. One of the main open topics is what to do when an import stmt is changed, for example 1. Module A (1.0.0) imports module B using “2.0.0 or derived”. There is no version 3+ for module B so module A uses 2.Y.Z 2. A

[netmod] Impact of changing an import statement on YANG versioning (https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/4)

Hi, We’ve been having discussions on the impact of changing an import statement and would like to get thoughts from the WG. Consider module A which imports module B. 1. Module A revision 1.0.0 has “revision-or-derived 1.0.0” for import of module B. import moduleB {

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01.txt

WG, This revision addesses many of the comments which were provided at WG adoption. Of note: - Including sub-modules by revision-date is now a SHOULD - Clarifications on use of revision-label by submodules - Added a revision-label-scheme extension - Use of # in filenames with revision-label (@

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

WG, we're in the process of updating the various drafts. So comments/ack/nack sooner rather than later would be very appreciated. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-06-05, 3:06 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: We (authors/contributors) have discussed this issue in the last couple

Re: [netmod] YANG versioning issue #48 (interpreting revision labels)

From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 at 2:04 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: RE: YANG versioning issue #48 (interpreting revision labels) forgot to add NETMOD… From

Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename

. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-05-09, 7:06 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman) Sent: 08 May 2020 15:13 Hi, We discussed using something along the lines of module-or-submodule-name['@'date]['#'revision-label].yang. Questions to the

Re: [netmod] Revision labels for submodules

identical except for an extra revision statement. It may appear that someone incorrectly bumped a version when there was no change, until you notice that "oh, this module includes submodules - one of those must have changed". Jason > -Original Message- > Fr

Re: [netmod] Revision label in filename

On 2020-06-11, 4:21 AM, "netmod on behalf of Jan Lindblad" wrote: Hi, > I understand the requirement to not break what's currently working for date in the filename. However we do need something similar to work for revision-label. Having another file with the revision-label embedded

Re: [netmod] optional char in yang-semver

I'm fine with either J1 or J2. Regards, Reshad. On 2020-06-10, 5:36 PM, "netmod on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke)" wrote: >> >> ### >> Option J1 >> ### >> use the following suffixes: >> _non_compatible (instead of the old "M", for an NBC change)

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: yang:longitude, yang:latitude, yang:postal-code, yang:country-code

+1 On 2020-07-30, 10:04 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: But then perhaps draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-05 needs to be updated or you need to use a grouping. I think we should not have overlapping work in different documents. /js On Thu, Jul 30,

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one manufacturer." As for the details, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 Regards, Reshad. On 2020-07-20, 4:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of tom petch" wrote: I am not a fan of loopback seeing it as