Alexander Clemm wrote:
> +1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1). I don't think (3) is needed
> here. The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers
> a good sense of the overall structure. The authoritative
> specification is still the .yang itself. Providing some guidance fo
Hi Mahesh,
There is an error with the yangdump-pro:
Error: Feature 'match-on-eth and match-on-ipv4' not found for
if-feature statement
ietf-access-control-l...@2018-01-16.yang:242.16: error(250):
definition not found
Error: Feature 'match-on-eth and match-on-ipv6' not found for
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:15 +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> > >
> > > On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > ... (trimming to topic)
> > > > > > > > > > > rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are
> >
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance
This version of the drafts addresses comments received during the last run of
the LC. We, the authors, believe that this document is ready for LC.
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:11 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directori
I have reviewed the changes and they look good to me.
Thanks,
Sonal.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An updated version of the draft, along with changes to remove icmp-off
> from the model, and updates to examples has been posted in the P
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 : Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model
Authors : Mahesh Jethanandani
Lis
+1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1). I don't think (3) is needed here.
The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers a good sense of
the overall structure. The authoritative specification is still the .yang
itself. Providing some guidance for how to represent the tree i
IMHO, if this module is supposed to be useful in practice, without requiring
immediately proprietary augmentations, UDP needs to be supported. RFC 5424
also states that implementations SHOULD support a UDP transport per RFC 5426.
Whether TCP support should be included is debatable because not
By the same reasoning surely UDP should not be available either, because it
also doesn't provide security.
From: netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, 17 January 2018 6:23 a.m.
To: Kent Watsen; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Actio
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:19:38PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>
> As for the automated validation of the tree diagrams as an added value to
> the human readability I have the following thoughts. I would like to be able
> to compare unlimited line length tree outputs generated by different YAN
On 01/16/2018 06:34 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/16/18 8:01 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 15:40, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I can see three
alternatives:
1) allow any number of addtional spaces
2) allow an
On 1/16/18 8:01 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 16/01/2018 15:40, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>> Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I can see three
>> alternatives:
>>
>> 1) allow any number of addtional spaces
>> 2) allow any number of addtional spaces +
On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
with
No at all. The first and last time I
The current dicussion on the draft is not yet concluded. The WGLC will
conclude when discussion of the editorial changes is complete.
Thanks
joel
On 1/10/18 8:16 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Just a reminder given the date that this was posted. This last call is
> expected to complete Monday 1/15/18.
Hi,
** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587
Kent: hmmm, what's going on here? This YANG module is providing an ability to configure
the "tcp" transport, even though the IESG made that ability historic in 2012
(see IESG Note below). Searching online, it looks like Cis
That's a fine idea, but ultimately we'll need to discuss/understand the
impact to the other dependent drafts, including the two already with the
IESG. If you can look at those and comment now, that would be helpful.
Lou
On 1/16/2018 10:55 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I propose that we update
Clyde,
This draft still isn't passing idnits. I provided the link to idnits
previously, but here it is again: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits. Below is
the idnits output for -19 with inlined comments.
PS: I didn't also checked the other issues we're tracking, but will when we get
past thes
On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
with
No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
2017:
https
On 16/01/2018 15:40, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
[...]
There is also undocumented alignment space count function before
that pyang uses to align the fields of child data leafs
with common anc
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 10:34 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> ... (trimming to topic)
> > > > > > > > > rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts
> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No at a
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> ... (trimming to topic)
> rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
> with
> >>> No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
> >>> 2017:
> >
On 1/16/2018 10:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I think
it is incumbent upon those revisiting past/closed WG decisions (in
this case, inline schema being represented by YL) to argue why the
decision needs to be revisited.
I'm repeating my self: b/c the current solution doesn't work well with
the
On 1/16/2018 10:08 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
4. This bit I found confusing. I propose this change to unambiguously
describe the current pyang format.
OLD:
* for a leaf-list or list
[] for a list's keys
NEW:
* for a leaf-list or list without keys
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
[...]
> >> There is also undocumented alignment space count function before
> >> that pyang uses to align the fields of child data leafs
> >> with common ancestor. If this is specified i
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
with
No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
2017:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19753.html
Oh,
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:13 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Lou Berger wrote:
> > Lada,
> >
On 16/01/2018 15:08, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
4. This bit I found confusing. I propose this change to unambiguously
describe the current pyang format.
OLD:
* for a leaf-list or list
[] for a l
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>
On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Hi,
I have reviewed and implemented (apart from schema mount specific
functionality) draft-ietfetf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-04 and found
the following issues:
==sec 2.6. Node Representation==
1. To correctly reflect
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 13:40 +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 13:23, Lou Berger wrote:
> > On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >
> > > On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > Hi Lou,
> > > >
> > > > in my view, we should do the following two (significant) chang
On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
It sounds like you are p
On 1/16/2018 8:40 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 13:23, Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-y
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
>
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >> Lada,
> >>
> >>
> >> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> >> Lada,
> >> >>
> >> >> It sounds li
On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having a parallel
list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounte
On 16/01/2018 13:23, Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having
a parallel
list of m
On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Lada,
>>
>> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in
>> the
>> dir
Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> Lada,
> >>
> >> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in
> >> the
> >> direction of the draft and in (2) a basic a
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having a parallel
list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted schemas directly in the
YANG library and
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 13:19 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
> >
> > 1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having
> > a parallel list of mounted schemas, we should
Lada,
On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
It is no change in direction,
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > Lada,
> >
> > It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
> > direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
>
> It is no change in direction, just a simplification
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
>
> 1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having
> a parallel list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted
> schemas directly in the YANG library and refer to t
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
> direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
It is no change in direction, just a simplification of the schema-describing
state data.
Lada,
It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already with
the iesg that will need to be returned to their WGs if either change is ma
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.
Before publishing YANG modules, we have two series of bottlenecks:
- the YANG module im
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed and implemented (apart from schema mount specific
> functionality) draft-ietfetf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-04 and found
> the following issues:
>
> ==sec 2.6. Node Representation==
>
> 1. To correctly reflect the current pyang output one needs
On 1/15/2018 4:48 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
OLD:
If the node is augmented into the tree from another module,
its name is printed as :.
NEW:
If the node is augmented into the tree from another module,
its name is printed as :, where is the
prefix defined
On 01/15/2018 09:41 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Hi,
I have reviewed and implemented (apart from schema mount specific
functionality) draft-ietfetf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-04 and found
the following issues:
==sec 2.6. Node Representation==
1. To correctly reflect the current pyang outp
Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 15/01/2018 15:26, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> All OK with me except where I have further comments/questions inline
> >> below:
> >>
> >> On 15/01/2018 14:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the
50 matches
Mail list logo
