On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:20:15PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
Juregen and Jeff:
Can you define what a merge is? Could you define it using the example below
and another one? I know you have talked around the subject, but I need
another examples so I can adjust the drafts in progress with
: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:25 AM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: Thomas D. Nadeau; i2rs@ietf.org; Susan Hares; net...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] [netmod] Summary of discussion from netmod interim on
i2rs requirements on netmod/netconf
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:38:02AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
I do not follow here. The secure transport delivers what NETCONF calls
a username, the identity of the NETCONF client. If this client acts on
behalf of another application (the secondary identity), then this
identity is meta
Separate ephemeral data stores for distinct I2RS clients would seem a
very bad idea.
It is perfectly acceptable for one client to read information being
manipulated by another cleitn. And if so, the reader should see the
results of that other clients activity.
Also, separate stores would not
Joel,
my expectations about the intelligence of I2RS clients is perhaps
lower than yours. Do you really believe I2RS clients will be smart to
adapt to whatever some other unknown conflicting I2RS client injects
into a shared ephemeral datastore?
I do not expect smartness. My hope is that I2RS
Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:00:26AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
It is noted, however, that introducing something like a secondary identity
would require changes to SSH and/or TLS and may be somewhat difficult to
make the case to the owning
Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Andy Bierman
a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
We can allow multiple ephemeral data stores, but the only dependency
can be with the NC config datastore. Example:
residential services
business services
(I believe that your talking about dumb clients is because I2RS and
NetCONF YANG use terms differently. In I2RS, the Agent is the thing in
the box, and the Client is the smarter things outside the box.)
We wrote very specific rules into the architecture document the WG
adopted, specifically
On Sep 25, 2014:6:12 AM, at 6:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com
wrote:
Separate ephemeral data stores for distinct I2RS clients would seem a very
bad idea.
It is perfectly acceptable for one client to read information being
manipulated by another cleitn. And if so, the reader
On Sep 25, 2014:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
Joel,
my expectations about the intelligence of I2RS clients is perhaps
lower than yours. Do you really believe I2RS clients will be smart to
adapt to whatever some other unknown
On Sep 25, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Andy Bierman
a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
We can allow multiple ephemeral data stores, but the only dependency
can be with the
On Sep 25, 2014:8:36 AM, at 8:36 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
On Sep 25, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Andy Bierman
a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
We
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 08:29:57AM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
On Sep 25, 2014:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
[...]
I assume there will be dumb I2RS clients.
I too assume dumb clients (i.e.: or those with minimal computational
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 08:32:25AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Likely as meta-data attributes.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-metadata-00
More homework for me. Thanks.
The primary ones I am aware of are operations on network addresses and
prefixes. Was
On Sep 24, 2014:3:10 AM, at 3:10 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:14:16PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
Jeff:
The fourth option is interesting and creative. A few questions/requests: 1)
How would the fourth model be expressed in
On Sep 24, 2014:3:00 AM, at 3:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:05:46PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
- This shadowing behavior avoids issues in the existing yang by not
requiring additional language semantics that would
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:35:47AM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014:3:10 AM, at 3:10 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
[...]
+-+
| |
+--- (+) ---+ |
On Sep 24, 2014:11:34 AM, at 11:34 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:35:47AM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014:3:10 AM, at 3:10 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote:
[...]
+-+
On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014:11:34 AM, at 11:34 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:35:47AM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014:3:10 AM, at 3:10 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
Why not start with just 1?
On Sep 24, 2014:5:00 PM, at 5:00 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014:11:34 AM, at 11:34 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at
Tom,
I'm in favor of starting with one, but can see use cases for more. Please keep
in mind that in case for more ephemeral data stores, they will all have same
schema, but different models in ephemeral stores. There will be no dependencies
between ephemeral data stores.
Dean
On Sep 24,
21 matches
Mail list logo
