Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> writes: > Hi Lada, > > > On 16/02/2018 09:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> writes: >> >>> I should add, as a contributor, I have read this document and think that >>> is ready for advancement. >>> >>> I have three minor comments: >>> >>> 1) module "feature" in YANG library is a leaf-list, but currently it is >>> a list in YANG libary bis. I suspect that this is due to one of the >>> incarnations when it contained additional information. I think that we >>> should revert it back to being a leaf list for consistency. >>> >>> 2) Lada recommended that module "deviation" be made a leaf-list. I also >>> support changing this for consistency with "feature" above, but don't >>> feel too strongly on this one. >> I agree to have both as leaf-lists. >> >>> 3) I think the "modules" list is also allowed to included modules that >>> don't actually contain any nodes that require implementation. Hence, it >>> might be useful of the "modules" description statement explicitly stated >>> this. I.e. perhaps something like: >>> >>> "This list may contain modules that do not contain any schema nodes that >>> require implementation. For example, it could contain a module that >>> only defines types and not any data nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications, >>> or deviations." >> Hmm, such modules belong to the other list "import-only-modules", don't >> they? > So my reasoning is that either is valid. > > I.e. a module being listed under "modules" means that it implements all > data nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications, deviations, etc. If a module > doesn't contain any data nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications, > deviations, etc then it is trivially implemented :-)
OK, so if a module contains only groupings and typedefs, it can appear either in "modules" or in "import-only-modules", and the effect is the same, right? This sounds reasonable. > > As an aside, RFC 7950 states in 5.6.5: > > A server implements a module if it implements the module's data > nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications, and deviations. > > > I wonder whether identities shouldn't also be on this list, since > section 9.10.2 states: Yes, and extensions as well. Lada > > On a particular server, the valid values are further restricted > to the set of identities defined in the modules implemented by the server. > > > Thanks, > Rob > > >> >> Lada >> >>> Thanks, >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> On 02/02/2018 13:51, Kent Watsen wrote: >>>> As co-author, I am not aware of any IPR related to this document. >>>> >>>> As a contributor, I have read this document and think that it is ready >>>> for advancement. >>>> >>>> Kent >>>> >>>> On 2/2/18, 4:30 AM, "Netconf on behalf of Robert Wilton" >>>> <netconf-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:netconf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf >>>> of rwil...@cisco.com <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am not aware of any IPR related to this document. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> On 01/02/2018 18:59, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: >>>> >>>> WG, >>>> >>>> The authors of rfc7895bis have indicated that they believe the >>>> document is ready for LC[1]. >>>> >>>> This starts a two week LC on the draft >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetconf-2Drfc7895bis-2D04&d=DwMD-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fi_opjj4kio7eufRXSQSi8dSjJNlkVDo8a1F0zsCrfE&s=MqbVljnYqIk9w78kcfp7oUqGR-qVoNV90njyTwLAdpc&e=>. >>>> The LC will end on February 15. >>>> >>>> Please send your comments on this thread. Reviews of the document, >>>> and statement of support are particularly helpful to the authors. >>>> If you have concerns about the document, please state those too. >>>> >>>> Authors please indicate if you are aware of any IPR on the document. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg13980.html >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_netconf_current_msg13980.html&d=DwMD-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fi_opjj4kio7eufRXSQSi8dSjJNlkVDo8a1F0zsCrfE&s=XhRSSTWifO-SkPi2CWK5Z5aUni2F1qRQ8Moj7T7gI-Y&e=> >>>> >>>> Mahesh & Kent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Netconf mailing list >>>> >>>> netc...@ietf.org <mailto:netc...@ietf.org> >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwMD-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fi_opjj4kio7eufRXSQSi8dSjJNlkVDo8a1F0zsCrfE&s=mcDF-v5I4epgsuWLHvr32pZ5mRonROKN8zpKcZWBC0o&e=> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Netconf mailing list >>> netc...@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > netc...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
