Re: [netmod]  CoRE Working Group Adoption call for draft-veillette-core-yang-library-05.txt

So this was a very thin response on a WG adoption call on the mailing list, but given the sense of the room on Tuesday, I think we can accept this as a WG draft. We do have the WG last call as another formal opportunity to stop this if it turns out this can be done in a way that preserves full

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 22:37 +0200, Robert Varga wrote: > On 24/07/2019 20:32, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to > > > > > change? ;-) >

Re: [netmod] YANG next

+1, Balazs From: netmod On Behalf Of Andy Bierman Sent: 2019. július 24., szerda 14:32 To: Kent Watsen Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG next On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen mailto:k...@watsen.net> > wrote: So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On 24/07/2019 20:32, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen > wrote: > > So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to change? ;-) >>> I am actually fine with not doing any changes to YANG 1.1 at all,

[netmod] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-07

Lou Berger has requested publication of draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-07 as Best Current Practice on behalf of the NETMOD working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding/ ___

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen wrote: > > So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to change? ;-) > > I am actually fine with not doing any changes to YANG 1.1 at all, except > perhaps > bug fixes. This doesn't necessarily mean closing the NETMOD WG, it would >

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-07.txt

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 : Handling Long Lines in Inclusions in Internet-Drafts and RFCs Authors : Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:10:23AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:52 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:00:29PM -0400, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >> > > >> This problem is actually not limited to YANG itself

Re: [netmod] YANG next

>>> So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to change? ;-) >> I am actually fine with not doing any changes to YANG 1.1 at all, except >> perhaps >> bug fixes. This doesn't necessarily mean closing the NETMOD WG, it would IMO >> be >> immensely useful to rewrite the

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On 23/07/2019 23:43, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to change? ;-) > I am actually fine with not doing any changes to YANG 1.1 at all, except > perhaps > bug fixes. This doesn't necessarily mean closing the NETMOD WG, it would IMO > be >

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On 24/07/2019 15:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Despite the fact that YANG 1.1 and NMDA are undoubtedly improvements, users > may get frustrated if lazy authors (including myself) don't update their > tools in a timely manner. Well, honestly, YANG 1.1, while compatible when viewed from the

Re: [netmod] YANG next

We already have some RFCs and drafts that propose extensions that would/could go into YANG 1.2. I would like to have an “official” agreement/document/wiki that lists what is planned to go into 1.2 whenever it happens. That would help us to have a platform that contains a well defined set of

Re: [netmod] YANG next

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:52 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:00:29PM -0400, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> This problem is actually not limited to YANG itself - people are > reporting > >> problems with the transition to NMDA. > >> >

Re: [netmod] YANG next

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:00:29PM -0400, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> This problem is actually not limited to YANG itself - people are reporting >> problems with the transition to NMDA. >> > > The YANG update from 1 to 1.1 mostly affected compiler writers - and

Re: [netmod] 6991bis: domain-name

On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 10:18 +0100, William Lupton wrote: > I think that "or" is slightly better here: > > "...does not support wildcards (see RFC 4592) or classless in-addr.arpa > delegations (see RFC 2317)" I agree, thanks. Lada > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 08:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder < >

Re: [netmod] YANG next

+1 Separate YANG next from YANG next step discussed in yang side meeting, is it the time to call for another workshop in IETF to discuss YANG next and Netconf next. 吴钦 Qin Mobile：+86-13914734360(Mobile Number) Email：bill...@huawei.com

Re: [netmod] 6991bis: domain-name

Yes, changed in my sources. /js On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:18:32AM +0100, William Lupton wrote: > I think that "or" is slightly better here: > > "...does not support wildcards (see RFC 4592) *or* classless in-addr.arpa > delegations (see RFC 2317)" > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 08:01, Juergen

Re: [netmod] 6991bis: domain-name

I think that "or" is slightly better here: "...does not support wildcards (see RFC 4592) *or* classless in-addr.arpa delegations (see RFC 2317)" On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 08:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:41:42PM -0400,

Re: [netmod] 6991bis: domain-name

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:41:42PM -0400, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > But these two unsupported cases only make sense in the context of DNS zone > data. > I would suggest instead > > NEW: > > "The domain-name type represents a DNS domain name. The > name SHOULD be fully