Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-wu-netmod-yang-xml-doc-conventions-00.txt

Hi, Folks: We have just posted a new v-(00) draft to discuss Documentation Conventions for Expressing YANG in XML. You comments are welcome! -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] 发送时间: 2018年1月27日 11:56 收件人: Benoit Claise; Qin Wu; Adrian Farrel;

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

+1 Dean. I’m having this discussion on daily bases... I do care about sustainability and long term growth though Regards, Jeff > On Jan 26, 2018, at 07:30, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: > > I will ask a different question > > How many people have implemented the draft? And are

Re: [netmod] [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05

Just saw this didn't get the boilerplate added when posted by the tracker. Please assume it to be there. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker > Review result: Has Nits > > I have reviewed the document and it is generally

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

Chris, nobody (I think) is having an issue with the lne and ni models. And it is great to hear that you have implemented them. However, please also understand that schema mount is a rather fundamental extension of the YANG technology and that people maintaining that technology and writing generic

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

Hi Juergen, I want to be understood so I'll reply again. It's not that I don't want to involve myself in technical discussions, it's that I (and others) think that what's being discussed now no longer matters to getting work done. The work is good enough *now*. When we get to this point it

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

I will ask a different question How many people have implemented the draft? And are they talking from experience implementing the model? I have implemented LNE and NI and to be honest, when customers ask about IETF compatibility, i reference a draft and tell them it will take long time until

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

OK, I accept that you do not care. Please also accept that others do care. And these people believe YANG library bis is needed. Since you do not want to read emails and involve yourself in discussions of technical details, I assume this is where our conversation stops. I tought you wanted to

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into a multi-email back and forth justifying point by point. The model is going on 2 years old now, I think it works just fine for what operators need, and see no issue with NMDA -- it should just work that was the point behind the NMDA design. Thanks,

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:18:55AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Now it seems we are supposed to wait a bunch longer on yet other works > in progress for as near as I can tell (could be wrong here as I just > don't have time to read the very long email threads that netmod > generates)

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

Chris +1 on the taking too long in pursuit of the perfect model. No service provider or enterprise wants to put their network evolution on hold waiting for the IETF. Instead they will seek what they need from other SDOs as you point out. The IETF needs to modernize their process and perhaps

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion.

Hi, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Maybe a meeting at this point is useful? It would consolidate things and > get away from the endless email threads. > > If this isn't already known to everyone. There are many people for whom > the length of time to market from IETF simple

[netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

Maybe a meeting at this point is useful? It would consolidate things and get away from the endless email threads. If this isn't already known to everyone. There are many people for whom the length of time to market from IETF simple doesn't work in particular with models. That's one big reason

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11.txt

Just a small fix to the RIP YANG example based on comments from Francis Dupont. Thanks, Acee On 1/26/18, 8:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF. Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version) Authors : Ladislav Lhotka

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] WG LC comment on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02

I support this proposal. /js On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:01:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi, > > One minor point that came up after the WG LC drafts had been posted is that > draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02 explicitly references the path > "/yang-library/checksum", which means that the

[netmod] WG LC comment on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02

Hi, One minor point that came up after the WG LC drafts had been posted is that draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02 explicitly references the path "/yang-library/checksum", which means that the draft has a hard dependency on this leaf always existing at this path in YANG library. e.g.

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] YANG library bis model

Hi Michal, I've fixed this in the latest draft. Thanks again for pointing this out. Rob On 26/01/2018 10:05, Michal Vaško wrote: Hi Rob, I have forgotten to mention that I have fixed it by modifying the leafref path the exact same way you proposed, it works fine that way. Regards, Michal

Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? [Netconf] YANG library bis model

Hi Rob, I have forgotten to mention that I have fixed it by modifying the leafref path the exact same way you proposed, it works fine that way. Regards, Michal On Friday, January 26, 2018 10:55 CET, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Thanks for raising this. > > On

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] YANG library bis model

Hi Michal, Thanks for raising this. On 26/01/2018 09:14, Michal Vaško wrote: Hello, we have tried implementing the YANG module ietf-yang-libr...@2018-01-17.yang from draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895 and have encountered a problem. I am not completely certain that the issue is with the model and

[netmod] YANG modules publication: what to focus on next? Jan 26th

Dear all, At the last IETF meeting, Alia, Deborah and I looked at the publication status of most YANG modules. Since that time, I've been keeping a summary of the situation. Let me share it with everybody. Here is an update after yesterday telechat: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-10

[netmod] YANG library bis model

Hello, we have tried implementing the YANG module ietf-yang-libr...@2018-01-17.yang from draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895 and have encountered a problem. I am not completely certain that the issue is with the model and not our XPath evaluator, but based on the definitions I have found I believe the