This officially closes the LC on YANG Library bis draft. I know that separately there has been a YANG Doctors review of this draft.
Authors, please post an updated draft addressing the comments received during LC and other reviews on the document. I will then do a shepherd’s writeup and send it for publication. Thanks. Mahesh //as shepherd > On Feb 16, 2018, at 8:04 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > On 16/02/2018 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> 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? > Yes. > >> >> 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 > Thanks, > Rob > >> >>> 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
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
