Hi Qiufang,
In your first option, did you mean "understand a certain data node is from
or from " ?
It is an interesting question about whether the origin annotation could/should
be available in a read from , and what values that origin could take.
We should consider other transformations betw
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 2:31 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> Andy - about use cases. Here is a problem we're trying to address:
>
>
>
> There are at least several major router implementations that have this
> concept of "hidden config" (i.e.
Hi Qiufang,
I think there are use-cases for "immutable" even outside of system config so we
may not want to restrict it to system config.
I'm not sure it would be as simple as erroring when a write is attempted to
that value.
Are you talking about an error at edit time, or at commit/validation
Hi Kent,
I'm not following your "In the meanwhile" thoughts.
Legacy clients are failing offline validation today. If running config has a
leafref to system config, and doesn't return that system config
(which it doesn't in some implementations), then the instance data returned to
the client d
Hi guys,
Andy - about use cases. Here is a problem we're trying to address:
There are at least several major router implementations that have this concept
of "hidden config" (i.e. list entries that can be referenced in a leafref by
explicit user config, but those list entries are not returned
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:27 AM tom petch wrote:
> From: Ladislav Lhotka
> Sent: 08 December 2021 12:38
>
> tom petch writes:
>
> > The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature if-feature
> > "client-base-cfg-parms"; and make uses base-cfg-parms { conditional
> > thereon in module ietf-b
From: Ladislav Lhotka
Sent: 08 December 2021 12:38
tom petch writes:
> The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature if-feature
> "client-base-cfg-parms"; and make uses base-cfg-parms { conditional
> thereon in module ietf-bfd-types. Reading and re-reading RFC7950,
> especially about ma
tom petch writes:
> The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature if-feature
> "client-base-cfg-parms"; and make uses base-cfg-parms { conditional
> thereon in module ietf-bfd-types. Reading and re-reading RFC7950,
> especially about mandatory and top-level, I am not convinced that
> this
The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature
if-feature "client-base-cfg-parms";
and make
uses base-cfg-parms {
conditional thereon in module ietf-bfd-types. Reading and re-reading RFC7950,
especially about mandatory and top-level, I am not convinced that this is
legal.
