[netmod] BBF work depending on draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01

Dear draft-ietf-netmod-entity authors, As mentioned by Tim Carey during the last IETF meeting, BBF work depends on the draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01. Message from BBF: We are now in the final stages of reviewing “TR-383” “Common YANG” modules that have the following dependencies: *

[netmod] latest confd 6.3 for YANG validation

Dear all, With the latest confd 6.3, some bug fixes are incorporated. Please check the validation errors for your YANG modules. Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Blog: YANG Opensource Tools for Data Modeling-driven Management

Dear all, This blog describes some of the opensource tools around YANG. While there exist some tools around the YANG language validation, I want to cover the bigger landscape of data modeling-driven management tools. http://www.claise.be/2016/12/yang-opensource-tools-for-data-modeling-driven-

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] IETF YANG module compilation: now four different compilers to check your modules.

am usually getting lost while scrolling through tables of this size... /js On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:30:27PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, During the IETF hackathon, I inserted two more compilers part of the daily cron job on my web site. Next to pyang, confdc, we know have yangdump-pro

[netmod] IETF YANG module compilation: now four different compilers to check your modules.

Dear all, During the IETF hackathon, I inserted two more compilers part of the daily cron job on my web site. Next to pyang, confdc, we know have yangdump-pro (from Yumaworks) and yanglint (thanks to Radek for the help) See for the results here

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

On 11/28/2016 11:49 PM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: Chairs, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Same answer on my side. Regards, B. Dean On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Lou Berger wrote: Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of the preparation for WG Last Call Are you aware

[netmod] Blog: YANG Quick Status Update Before this IETF 97

Enjoy, https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/11/yang-quick-status-update-before-this-ietf-97/ Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Fwd: RFC 8022 on A YANG Data Model for Routing Management

Excellent news before the IETF meeting. This set of YANG modules is the foundation for all routing modules. As you can see here there are many dependencies for the ietf-routing YANG module. Many thanks to Lada, Acee, the chairs, and the community for this

[netmod] In preparation for our NETMOD meeting in Seoul

Dear all, $ wgstatus -l 96 -s NETMOD Fetching draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-00 into cache # Document Status Since 2016-07-22 00:00:00 ## New RFCs RFC 7950 - The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language [u'Proposed Standard RFC'] RFC 7951 - JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG [u'Proposed Standard RF

Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: (with COMMENT)

On 11/2/2016 1:25 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:21:30AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Yes - that’s what I meant. I’d vote to make them both informative as in RFC 7223 - especially with the trend to use YANG with different transport protocols. NACM should be tra

Re: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions

On 10/21/2016 5:12 PM, Lou Berger wrote: All, Some may have noticed that there was a bit of a gap between the close of LC and the submission of the publication request for this document. While it was gated by a minor update, the more significant reason for the delay was the consideration of

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-03.txt

Dean, Thanks. As this is part of the early YANG doctor process, let me copy the YANG doctors, WG chairs, and ADs (as described at https://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/yang-doctors.html) Regards, Benoit Authors, I don’t have deep knowledge of PIM, so if some protocol specifics haven’t bee

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24.txt

Very good Lou. I did my AD review today, and found no issues. Sending the document to IETF LC. Regards, Benoit I have just submitted the publication request for this document. The write up is available in the usual spot, http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/shepherdwr

Re: [netmod] 3 RFCs in 1 day!

Indeed, great achievement. Thanks to everybody involved. Regards, Benoit. With the publication of these three RFCs a major milestone has been reached - a big thank you to Martin and Lada and everybody who contributed to the development of these specifications over the last two years. This work i

[netmod] Fwd: RE: Regarding IEEE/IETF coordination draft draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang

-netmod-intf-vlan-yang Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 19:51:14 + From: Glenn Parsons To: Benoit Claise , Romascanu, Dan (Dan) , ops-...@ietf.org CC: netconf-cha...@ietf.org , Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - Ensoft Ltd at Cisco) , Pat Thaler , Eric Gray , John Messenger , Paul Nikolich (paul.nikol

Re: [netmod] netmod - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 97

Hi, A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Lou Berger, a Chair of the netmod working group. - Working Group Name: NETCONF Data Modeling Language Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Lou Berger N

[netmod] RFC087bis and intended/applied status guideline

Dear all, Where do we capture this outcome, cut/pasted from the NETMOD chairs into slides: "Models need not, and SHOULD NOT, be structured to include nodes/leaves to indicate applied configuration" RFC6087 is about: "_Guidelines _for _Authors _and _Reviewers _of _YANG Data Model Document

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-01.txt: compilation error

Dear authors, Part of the IETF hackathon today, I integrated confdc , as a second YANG module compiler, in http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html. Reason? For example, confdc validates xpath while pyang doesn't. And confdc found an issue with your draft, which is now flagged as fail

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-entity-00.txt: compilation error

Dear authors, Part of the IETF hackathon today, I integrated confdc , as a second YANG module compiler, in http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html. Reason? For example, confdc validates xpath while pyang doesn't. And confdc found an issue with your draft, which is now flagged as fail

[netmod] In preparation of our NETMOD meeting in Berlin

Dear all, $ wgstatus - sNETMOD # Document Status Since 2016-04-08 00:00:00 ## New WG-Docs draft-ietf-netmod-entity-00[u'I-D Exists', u'WG Document'] draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-01 [u'I-D Exists', u'WG Document'] ## Updated WG-Docs draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14[u'RF

Re: [netmod] Closing on an OpState Solution Direction

Thanks Lou and Kent. As mentioned in YANG Data Models in the Industry: Current State of Affairs : "Once those two issues are resolved, this will for sure open the gate to publish all these much-neede

Re: [netmod] contact statement content

On 7/6/2016 3:26 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Dale R. Worley > wrote: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> writes: > 1) Remove the text "In addition, the Area Director and other contact > information MAY be present", as the

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-02.txt posted

Dear all, We have posted draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification version 2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/ We believe that we have addressed all the open issues, and that this draft is ready for WGLC. Regards, Carl, Dean, and Benoit

Re: [netmod] Next NETMOD chair

Dear all, As discussed with Jürgen Schönwälder some time ago, Jürgen decided to remain a NETMOD chair until YANG 1.1 was done. That milestone is now reached: the document is in the RFC-editor queue. Today, again in coordination with Jürgen, I took the necessary admin action to officially relea

Re: [netmod] New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on YANG Models to enable G.fast deployments"

ork noted. Regards, Benoit (OPS AD) Title: Liaison to IETF on YANG Models to enable G.fast deployments Submission Date: 2016-05-18 URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1476/ From: "Michael Fargano" To: Benoit Claise ,Joel Jaeggli ,Mahesh Jethanandani ,Mehmet Ers

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1 - draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14.txt ready

Happy to see this. Let me execute on this now, and approve this draft. Next stage is the RFC editor queue. Thanks to Martin as the editor, the doc. shepherd, the WG chairs, and the entire NETMOD community for this new standard. Regards, Benoit Benoit, Martin has posted revision -14 and I (

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1 final review of the edits resulting from the IESG process

Thank you Jürgen and Martin. The document really improved IMO. Regards, Benoit Hi, Martin has posted revision -13 of the YANG 1.1 specification. This revision incorporates all comments that we have received during the IESG process. A big thanks in particular to our gen-art and ops-dir reviewers

[netmod] Fwd: YANG Model Coordination Group directory closure

FYI. Forwarded Message Subject:YANG Model Coordination Group directory closure Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:35:07 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: IETF-Discussion list , yang-co...@ietf.org Dear all, The YANG Model Coordination Group <http://www.ietf.org/i

[netmod] IETF Hackathon in Berlin: YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF

Dear all, If you start planning your trip to the Berlin IETF now, you might consider participating to the IETF Hackathon. We had some good success at thelast IETF , and we want to repeat the experience. See https://www.ietf.org/

Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12: (with COMMENT)

On 5/18/2016 8:58 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:59:20PM -0700, Suresh Krishnan wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all e

Re: [netmod] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12

Martin, al., Please engage in the discussion/resolution, even before the telechat (this Thursday). Regards, Benoit I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please tre

Re: [netmod] datastores Re: AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

FYI. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/ballot/#benoit-claise Regards, Benoit Tom, I see that the definition of 'datastores' has cropped up in this AD Review, as in the e-mail below. Meanwhile, draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-05.txt is in IETF

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

On 4/29/2016 11:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Right, I think it goes pretty much without saying, so this sentence is >IMO unnecessary. > Apparently, this was not clear to every reader and hence the proposal to add this sentence in order to make this explicit. This is a always a good princ

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

On 4/28/2016 9:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: So perhaps the proposal is to add After applying all deviations announced by a server, in any

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis: now in IETF Last Call

Dear all, Now that draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis v12 has posted, I sent this document to IETF Last Call. During this 2 weeks period, your feedback is obviously welcome. I also tentatively placed this document on the May 19th IESG telechat, assuming that the IETF Last Call will go smoothly. Re

Re: [netmod] datastores Re: AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

il 21, 2016 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1) Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for engaging quickly. [I removed the resolved entries] Hi Benoit, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: ht

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

On 4/27/2016 12:43 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Removed some extra ones on which we agree. See in line. - Terminology: The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

Hi Martin, Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Removed some extra ones on which we agree. See in line. - Terminology: The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>]: ... o configuration datastore: a configuration datastore

[netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 2)

Dear all, Here is second and final part of my AD review. -7.14.3. The output Statement If a "config" statement is present for any node in the output tree, the "config" statement is ignored. What does "ignored" mean? We can't set a leaf as RPC output? If I take a the example in 7.15.3 ..

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

Hi Martin, Removed some extra ones on which we agree. See in line. - Terminology: The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 ]: ... o configuration datastore: a configuration datastore is an instantiated data tree with configurat

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

On 4/21/2016 3:44 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:24:09PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi Benoit, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

Hi Martin, Thanks for engaging quickly. [I removed the resolved entries] Hi Benoit, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-

[netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt - Do we want to mention RESTCONF in the abstract? From the new charter: The NE

Re: [netmod] Plans for draft-openconfig-netmod-model-catalog

On 3/30/2016 11:16 PM, Anees Shaikh wrote: Lou, you may know but just FYI it sounds like Benoit and Carl were thinking about a hackathon project to populate a version of the catalog model with IETF modules yes, for the information we can extract from the YANG models. Some other info will

[netmod] Fwd: [RFC State] has been added to the RFC Editor database

And another one in the RFC editor queue. Thanks to the WG for your work on this one. Regards, Benoit Forwarded Message Subject: [RFC State] has been added to the RFC Editor database Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:30:32 -0700 From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org To: lho...@ni

[netmod] Fwd: [RFC State] has been added to the RFC Editor database

Thank you all for this document. Regards, B. Forwarded Message Subject: [RFC State] has been added to the RFC Editor database Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:56:45 -0700 From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org To: lho...@nic.cz CC: netmod-...@ietf.org, netmod-cha...@ietf.org,

Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09: (with COMMENT)

On 3/22/2016 9:47 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 22 Mar 2016, at 09:10, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: Hi Kent, Thanks for the pointer. The zeroconf draft is cool beans to be sure. That describes an enrollment mechanism for devices th

Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09: (with COMMENT)

Dear all, Hi Stephen, thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline. Stephen Farrell writes: -- COMMENT: -- - I would have thought that it'd be

[netmod] Fwd: Blog: YANG Data Models in the Industry: Current State of Affairs

Forwarded here, in case you don't look at the IETF-Discussion list Regards, B. Forwarded Message Subject:Blog: YANG Data Models in the Industry: Current State of Affairs Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:49:32 -0700 From: Benoit Claise To: IETF-Discussion list

[netmod] YANG check in idintis (was: New datatracker release: v6.16.0)

Dear all, Now, idnits uses xym.py (to extract the YANG data models from the IETF drafts) and pyang (to validate them). And there is also http://www.yangvalidator.com/ And also http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html All this to help you with your YANG data models. Regards, Benoit

[netmod] Fwd: Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] I-D Action: draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-03.txt

Dear all, This draft is extremely important because it doesn't only cover routing information but it wants to impose a structure for all YANG models. Please review and comment. Regards, Benoit Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] I-D Action: draft-rtgyangdt-r

Re: [netmod] Consistency in YANG for Router IDs [Was: WG Chair comments on draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang-02]

On 2/26/2016 1:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Benoit, Lada, On 2/26/16, 3:32 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)" wrote: Hi Lada, Hi Benoit, this was discussed a while ago in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TehrMAboX-cMmmX537rs81DN

Re: [netmod] Consistency in YANG for Router IDs [Was: WG Chair comments on draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang-02]

t Lada On 25 Feb 2016, at 13:41, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, Sorry for the delay (mix of vacation and business travel). Let me try to summarize the situation as I see it: - From the routing RFCs, BGP Identifier, OSPF router ID, TE identifier, and LSR identifiers are all an unsigned

[netmod] Both draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata and draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json are now moved IETF LC ...

Dear all, ... thanks to the new draft versions posted today. I thought I would let you know. Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03

On 2/24/2016 11:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: [...] "The 'md:annotation' statement can appear only at the top level of a YANG module." I don't understand what the top is? You mean, after the import

[netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03

Dear all, Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03. Only editorial comments, except potentially the last point. - "data type", to which you refer in the terminology section, is not defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis

[netmod] Terminology => YANG module versus YANG data model versus YANG model : please don't use "YANG model" any longer

Dear all, Reviewing some NETMOD documents these days, I realized that we're sometimes not consistent regarding terminology: YANG module, YANG data model, YANG model. Example: All three can be found in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt and https://tools.ietf.org/htm

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity YANG module

ybe I don't know where to look. Message received re YANG 1.1. All BBF YANG will use YANG 1.1. Thanks, William On 15 Dec 2015, at 10:17, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: So, let's do it. Tom, or one of the other chairs - you need to run this. Regards, Dan -Original Message---

[netmod] Welcome Lou Berger as NETMOD co-chair

Dear all, I want to be the first one to thank Lou Berger who accepted to become the NETMOD co-chair, replacing Tom Nadeau. Lou has been working on YANG for some time now, including his work on the routing YANG design team. Recently, I asked Lou and Acee to produce a comparison of the three

Re: [netmod] Secdir review of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04

Tom, Kent, WG, Can you please engage with Tero. I would like to put this document on the telechat in 2 weeks from now. Regards, Benoit I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments wer

[netmod] Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04

Tom, Kent, WG, Can you please engage with Al. Here is his OPS DIR review. Regards, Benoit Forwarded Message Subject:[OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:18:28 -0500 From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) To: draft-ietf-netm

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

Hi Lada, I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete example modules and short module snippets that are used for explaining a certain YANG language or encoding issue. If you look at this particular example, then changing the JSON document on p. 6 to { "examp

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

Hi Lada, Thanks for the quick reply. Hi Benoit, thank you for the review, please see my responses inline. Benoit Claise writes: Dear all, I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now ready and that the write-up will be completed end of this week. In order to speed

[netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

Dear all, I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now ready and that the write-up will be completed end of this week. In order to speed up the publication, here is my AD review. - Editorial: This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration, st

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt

Dear all, I started the IETF last call process on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04. Regards, Benoit [Speaking as co-chair] Benoit, I believe the document is now ready for your AD review. —Tom On Jan 22, 2016:8:37 PM, at 8:37 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: [As a contri

Re: [netmod] IPR Check: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

I'm not aware of any IPR. Regards, Benoit This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt

Thanks Tom, I believe the draft is good to go to IETF LC. Once I have the write-up, I will progress it. Regards, Benoit [Speaking as co-chair] Benoit, I believe the document is now ready for your AD review. —Tom On Jan 22, 2016:8:37 PM, at 8:37 PM, Kent Watsen wr

[netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs

Dear all, I know that this draft is not yet on my table, but in order to speed up the process, I read v3. - Editorial: I see many instances of (see term) or (see terms). This doesn't add any value IMO. If there are some chance for misinterpretation of those terms, capitalize the terms specifi

Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries

Lada, On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lada, On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Robert Wilton writes: Hi Lada, I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for here to allow both the user and system to easily relate between what the operator d

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-03.txt

Hi Kent, [btw, speaking as a contributor] Hi Benoit, You use MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and you refer to RFC 2119. Fine. However, it might be beneficial to say something such as in RFC 7698 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMEND

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Resigning Chair Position

Thanks Tom for your years of service in this very important WG. Joel and I are working on a replacement plan. Regards, Benoit I am writing to the NETMOD WG to inform you all that I will be resigning my position as co-chair. I will remain on as co-chair and continue my duties until B

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-03.txt

Hi Kent, You use MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and you refer to RFC 2119. Fine. However, it might be beneficial to say something such as in RFC 7698 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

On 12/22/2015 1:55 PM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: On Dec 22, 2015:6:38 AM, at 6:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: Jürgen, On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: I hope that nobody disagrees that the operational state design and how to structure the models are the two blocking

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Jürgen, On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: I hope that nobody disagrees that the operational state design and how to structure the models are the two blocking factors to publish YANG models. If you disagree or don't see this, let me know, I should communicate b

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Andy, On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Kent Watsen > wrote: Hi Robert, I agree that -01 doesn’t add much on top of -00. This is expected as we’re in the fit and finish phase. If you want to help finish the draft, then please consider responding

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

lead here." This remark is done as OPS AD. Also, I discussed, as OPS AD, with the chairs, having an identity YANG model design team in the past. However, my "support" below is an individual. Regards, Benoit On Dec 16, 2015:3:55 AM, at 3:55 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all,

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

Dear all, On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:34, Nadeau Thomas wrote: NETMOD: The Broadband Forum and the members of the design team who worked on the IETF Entity module have asked that the working group considerthe ietf-entity YANG module (currently https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft

[netmod] operational state: next step

Dear all: Background: the operational state is a blocking factor for the publication of the YANG models. For example, I've been told that the ISIS and OSPF models are ready, pending resolution on the operational state. Let me try to clarify the situation and the next steps. During the NETMOD

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity YANG module

I personally don’t see anything that prevents this. Same opinion here. Regards, Benoit —Tom On Dec 13, 2015:6:56 AM, at 6:56 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: Concerning the 'draft status' - anything prevents the wg from running a short consensus call and adding this item

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-05.txt

Andy, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi, I have one question related to "5.1. Module Naming Conventions". Currently, the YANG modules that I have included as part of my individual IDs don't currently use an "ietf-" prefix because the drafts haven't been adopted as WG documents yet. However, this mean

[netmod] YANG model coordination group: Welcome Qin Wu as a new member

Carl Moberg Dean Bogdanovic Qin Wu Benoit Claise As mentioned in the NETMOD meeting at IETF 94 <03%20-%20YANG%20Model%20Coordination%20Group>, our current phase approach is: Phase 1: List of the YANG models (inventory) Phase 2: Tooling Phase 3: Help with compilation

[netmod] NETCONF, YANG, pyang tutorials posted

Dear all, The tutorial materials is now posted. Videos on youtube: - YANG by Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhYZhbANiwE - NETCONF by Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7fb11dLztA - PYANG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFTzgdYDw0 http://ietf.org/edu/technical-tutorials.html#n

[netmod] New NETMOD charter approved

Dear all, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/ was approved today on the IESG telechat. Regards, Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] open-source yang-explorer application

Great. Thanks Pravin. Regards, Benoit Hi All, As demonstrated in IETE 93 hackthon and Bits & Byte Session, Yang Explorer (beta) a open source web based yang browser and RPC builder/Tester(w/ncclient) is now available on github. https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/yang-explorer Please let me kn

Re: [netmod] And another peak of new YANG models just before the submission deadline

st YANG modules must be compiling. Regards, Benoit COMPILATION PASSED/TOTAL ratio, sorry. Dan -Original Message- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:32 AM To: 'Benoit Claise'; NETMOD Working Group Subject: RE: [netmod] And another peak of n

[netmod] And another peak of new YANG models just before the submission deadline

Dear all, See http://claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.png Regards ,Benoit ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] IETF 94 Hackathon: NETCONF/YANG, I2RS, OpenDaylight

Dear all, Based on previous successful events, this IETF 94 week will be again preceded by the hackathon. And there is a track for *NETCONF/YANG, I2RS, OpenDaylight* See https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/94hackathon. Ignas and I are busy updating the WIKI with the current topi

[netmod] Fwd: Re: Openconfig protocol(s)

thers will use NETCONF, or their own REST-based protocol. OpenConfig is not prescribing or endorsing any specific protocol -- we only insist that the data models be common. ... On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Benoit Claise mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt - REQ 6 clarification

Thanks Rob, that clarifies the situation for me. Regards, Benoit On 14 September 2015 at 08:43:53, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: Re-reading this section 4.5, I understand 6A and 6C, but is 6B also required? Do we need to make the link between a config node and all the derived

Re: [netmod] Issue 7 (Re: closing issues on opstate-reqs)

Sent too fast. I would change the requirement text like this. OLD: 7. Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure A. Scope is limited to IETF-defined modules B. Multiple domain-specific trees are okay C. Multiple namespaces are okay NEW: 7. Ab

[netmod] Issue Re: closing issues on opstate-reqs

Dear all, One update on my side on https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/7: Why limit scope to just IETF-defined modules? This issue will be taken care of in the Guidelines document RFC6087bis, for both the IETF and the other SDOs, once we agree on the solution. It is covered by

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Rob, Benoit, I want to pick up on this very specific point. I think Lou’s mails imply a similar position, but I want to be clear. On September 10, 2015 at 04:40:30, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: A common architecture includes a central configuration data store that is being

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt - REQ 6 clarification

Dear all, I have a clarification question wrt the requirement 6 6. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding operational state A. Ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied config nodes B. Ability to map intended config nodes

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt

Jonathan, Looking in from outside the current problem domain I'm not sure I'm sufficiently informed to comment, however I have a couple of queries: 1. The requirements talk about both synchronous and asynchronous systems (1(D), 3, 3(A)) but really only address the behaviour for asynchr

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

Jürgen, On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:38:35PM -0400, Nadeau Thomas wrote: I wanted to set things up for the interim meeting tomorrow. To frame the meeting, we want to achieve two main goals: 1) close on requirements around a requirement to define a structure for IETF models and t

[netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Dear all, The YANG coordination team has spent some time reading and gathering input on the requirements and proposed solutions in draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate. This note is to collect some observations that will hop

Re: [netmod] minutes of the NETMOD 2015-08-31 virtual interim meeting

On 04/09/2015 18:54, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 09:29:53AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, Is there a WEB page that lists all the upcoming virtual meetings? This would really help people remember without scanning lots of ietf-announce email. The official list of inter

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Andy, [taking on excerpt, out of context, to make a point] 1) As a consumer of YANG models, how do I identify the set of models that provide a set of functionality? How do YANG model writers ensure that their models are as easy to deal with as possible by having consistent model

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG YANG 1.1 virtual interim meetings

[sorry for the delay. August vacation] See in-line. On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:22:41AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: Lets please not mix YANG 1.1 work with other discussions at this point in time

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Dear all, There is a lot of passionate debates around YANG these days, which shows how important YANG became. After the last IETF meeting, the openconfig group requested a call with me. During that call, these operators re-explained their problem to me. Let me decompose this into three parts,

<    1   2   3   4   >