Re: [netmod] [Supa] [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt

Hi Joe, et al., > 1) It is not clear to me why there is any dependence of the fb-rib > data model on an eca data model. While supa does allow for > policy model to be sent directly to the router, it also allows many > other cases. Exactly. More particularly, in scanning this draft, I fail to

Re: [netmod] [Supa] [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt

Sue, > On #1) the dependency between I2RS Filter-based RIB (FB-RIB) and > ECA, please see draft-kini-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model-02.txt. In section 1.1, > it gives the definition of the FB-RIB. Sorry, it does NOT do this. To quote from this section: A Filter Based RIB uses Event-Condition-Action

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

It’s true that the draft is largely centered around the intended/applied config notion, but not exclusively. Specifically, 4-B has "Ability to map intended config nodes to associated derived state nodes". I think that this might be the only exclusion though and, if it weren’t for it I

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

On 1/6/16 4:59 PM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess what I'm hearing is that we should do a hopefully very short >> augmentation for domain names in the matches clause and standardize that >> separately. Does that

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

Sorry, missed Kent’s remark: [KENT] or due to missing hardware, right? That’s one root cause, but I didn’t want to go into much details here. Missing Hardware is one issue, other issues are unconscious configuration requests from the client, faulty HW, bugs etc. Whatever the root cause, the

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

Kent, I would agree that the discussion doesn’t affect the requirements draft in its current state. The solutions draft would be a better place probably. Gert From: Kent Watsen Sent: 06 January 2016 17:43 To: Gert Grammel; Robert Wilton Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod]

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> On this point: >> >> On 12/21/15 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >>> And >>> should the interface

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

[As a contributor] Gert> If a client is has the intention to update/change a config, its decision is based on the present state of the configuration when the decision is taken. Ideally the present configuration is in a state where intended == applied config, so there is stable ground upon

Re: [netmod] netmod-opstate-reqs and error option terms (rollback on error)

Hi Kent, On 06/01/2016 16:43, Kent Watsen wrote: [As a contributor] Gert> If a client is has the intention to update/change a config, its decision is based on the present state of the configuration when the decision is taken. Ideally the present configuration is in a state where intended ==

Re: [netmod] [Supa] [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt

Sue: I'm happy to help. I2RS is important work, and I would like to ensure that SUPA could help your work (without delaying it, of course). Also, I'm interested in the data models that you come up with, as they are excellent examples of what SUPA needs to support. regards, John From: netmod

Re: [netmod] [Supa] [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt

John: You are correct in indicating that the draft assumes you understand the event = Packet reception. It is a failing in the draft that Joel has indicated on these lists. I will be updating the ECA drafts and FB-RIB drafts. I will send a copy to you and Joel for review this week.

Re: [netmod] [Supa] [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt

Hi Sue, You are correct, it is a very simple case, with one type of event. Joel indicated flaws in the document that it did not indicate the event was a “packet reception”. At this point, it sounds like you and Joel are suggesting that this particular simplistic case of

Re: [netmod] Draft clemm netmod mount draft

Hi, this was intended as an example. The reason to include the interfaces module is the scenario in which a controller would like to have a model/inventory of the various interfaces across the network. Each network device will have its own instantiation of the interfaces module. Rather than

[netmod] action-stmt

Hi, The action-stmt example on page 27 is wrong. The element is missing. It is shown correctly on page 105. p27 http://acme.example.com/system;> eth1 192.0.2.1 p105 http://example.net/server-farm;>