Hi Frank,
> On Apr 25, 2023, at 9:36 PM, Fengchong (frank)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Kent,
> Some nodes that are originally read-only have to appear in running because
> they are referenced by other configurations.
> For example, the type of interface, many other configurations may reference
> it.
Hi Andy,
> I hope the immutable flag will work with non-NMDA as well as the current NMDA.
Yes.
A non-NMDA server can still:
Present YANG modules having the "immutable" extension statements. It's up to
the clients if they understand it and, if not, then nothing changes.
Return the
Hi Kent,
Some nodes that are originally read-only have to appear in running because
they are referenced by other configurations.
For example, the type of interface, many other configurations may reference
it.
Just as:
container Ethernet-related {
when ../type = 'ethernet'
Hi,
I have reviewed this draft during the normal working group process, and
I just re-read it as part of working group last call. I believe the
function defined is useful, and I think the draft is ready to advance
towards publication once my list of small points have been addressed.
Cheers,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:15 AM Jürgen Schönwälder
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:46:05PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Which merge fails?
> >
> > + =
>
> So far this merge step does not exist (and it may be bad if it would
> exist). The WGs need to think very careful about
Thanks Bo. You didn't miss any email - we mistakenly didn't have you on the
original IPR callout.
Jason
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 9:24 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org; Jason Sterne (Nokia) ; Kent Watsen
; Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)
Subject: [netmod] IPR Poll on
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:46:05PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> > Which merge fails?
>
> + =
So far this merge step does not exist (and it may be bad if it would
exist). The WGs need to think very careful about introducing such a
step and the consequences.
/js
--
Jürgen Schönwälder
> Which merge fails?
+ =
> If the mac-addr in running does not match the
> hardware (and it has to match according to the model), then the
> interface config simply will not be applied.
Maybe that’s the answer. I was thinking that just the ‘key’ fields were used
to “match the hardware”.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:52:32AM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> > My assumption so far is that an interface configuration is matched
> > against hardware and it is applied if there is matching hardware. In
> > other words, if an edit makes the interface configuration not match
>
Hi Jürgen,
> My assumption so far is that an interface configuration is matched
> against hardware and it is applied if there is matching hardware. In
> other words, if an edit makes the interface configuration not match
> the hardware anymore, then the config is simply not applied anymore
> and
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 08:50:02AM +, maqiufang (A) wrote:
>
> 2) The "immutable" YANG extension statement (not the metadata annotation)
> designates, at the schema-level, config=true nodes that, when present in
> , are system-defined and hence immutable.
> Note that NMDA does allow clients
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
/Jan Lindblad
On 25 Apr 2023, at 00:04, Kent Watsen mailto:k...@watsen.net>>
wrote:
Bo and Jan (CC-ed),
Please reply-all to this email with your response to the original IPR call here:
12 matches
Mail list logo
