On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:09 AM Deepak Rajaram (Nokia) <deepak.rajaram= [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello All, > > > > For those of you who were in person at IETF-121, hopefully you all had a > safe travel back. > > > > I would like to thank the group for the fruitful discussion on various > proposals on templates. When reading the drafts further, i have few > questions on the draft *draft-ma-netmod-yang-config-template-00 - YANG > Templates > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ma-netmod-yang-config-template/> *. > Since, it is marked as standards track, I would like to understand if the > intention is to standardise the ‘ietf-template’ model mentioned in section > 8.1 or to standardise the metadata object stmt-extend/operation-tag or > both. In my view, the stmt-extend/operation-tag is something which could > as well be achieved with existing RFC 7952? > > > > I have similar queries on *slides-121-netmod-sessb-16-yang-templates-01 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/121/materials/slides-121-netmod-sessb-16-yang-templates-01>*, > are we proposing to standardise the module ‘yang-template’ in slide 3 or > the metadata object apply-templates/exclude-templates or both? > > > > In both the proposals, were the point on mandatories and defaults(which > was touched upon in the meeting) considered? I believe, this needs to be > considered when applying a template. > > > It would help if the WG agreed upon some functional requirements for templates. Any plan for that? IMO a solution using anydata + a deterministic method of identifying the object for the root of template is required. I would pick proposal #3 if we're just skipping the requirements phase. Regards, > Deepak > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
