Re: [netmod] Differentiating the types of Mount

2016-03-18 Thread Eric Voit (evoit) 
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder , March 16, 2016 7:23 AM
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:50AM +, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> > To help differentiate between concepts and drafts, below are strawman
> definitions for the various types of Mount which we have been discussing over
> the last year in Netmod.   Thoughts/suggestions?
> >
> > YANG Mount
> > 
> > Definition: An abstracted term for a mechanism that a parent YANG model can
> use to link in YANG information defined or located elsewhere.
> > Purpose: Provides model flexibility by enabling the growth of YANG trees via
> an explicit reference to other YANG information and structures.
> 
> Trying to rewrite the definition to be more consistent with existing
> terminology:
> 
>   The abstract concept of incorporating a YANG-defined data tree (the
>   mounted data tree) into a existing YANG-defined data tree (the
>   parent data tree).
> 
> Well, this is not really correct, perhaps we have to just say 'tree'
> instead of 'data tree' since a schema mount (as I understand it) seems to
> incorporate a schema tree into another schema tree while the other two
> mounts incorporate a data tree into a data tree. So perhaps the general
> definition is something like this:
> 
>   The abstract concept of incorporating a YANG-defined data tree or
>   schema tree (the mounted data or schema tree) into a existing
>   YANG-defined data tree or schema tree (the parent data tree).

This works for me.

> The schema mount then essentially removes data tree and the other two
> mounts remove the schema tree from this definition.
> 
> Is your alias mount simply a special case of a peer mount where the peer is
> local? Or is there more to it? 

>From a syntax standpoint, peer mount is more general.  But underneath, things 
>get more complicated.

For example, many of the initial concerns about peer mount were on the 
implications of synchronizing objects across distributed systems.  (I.e., 
Eventual consistency is not appropriate when attempting to manage some type of 
objects.)  Alias mount shouldn't have this issue.

Eric

> In other words, would it be reasonable to think of the terms in this way:
>  +-> schema (tree) mount
>|
> mount -> |+-> local data tree (alias) mount
>  +-> data (tree) mount -> |
>   +-> remote data tree (peer) mount

The formatting came through mixed up, and I didn't want to make any assumptions 
by doing my own reformatting.  If the answer above doesn't suffice, resend the 
example.

Eric

> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-entitydt-netmod-entity

2016-03-18 Thread Kent Watsen 

My mistake, I simply copied that text from the referenced email without 
thinking about changing that text.  It would’ve helped if the template I used 
replaced “WG Last Call” with “WG ”.  

Lou, have you posted the template anywhere yet?

Thanks,
Kent






On 3/16/16, 3:37 PM, "Martin Bjorklund"  wrote:

>I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
>
>[BTW, you should change the text from "preparation for WG Last Call"
>to "preparation for WG adoption" or something.]
>
>
>/martin
>
>
>Kent Watsen  wrote:
>> [This regards the new pre-adoption process described by 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15520.html]
>> 
>> 
>> Authors, Contributors, WG,
>> 
>> As part of the preparation for WG Last Call, are you aware of any IPR that 
>> applies to draft identified above?  Please state either:
>> 
>> "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
>> or
>> "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
>> 
>> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
>> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?  If yes to the above, 
>> please state either:
>> 
>> "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
>> or
>> "No, the IPR has not been disclosed"
>> 
>> If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
>> appropriate.
>> 
>> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the 
>> above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware 
>> of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until 
>> a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOTE: 
>> THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE’S TO LINES.
>> 
>> If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed as 
>> an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF 
>> IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of 
>> others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any 
>> contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more 
>> information, please see the RFCs listed above and 
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> NETMOD WG Chairs
>> 
>> PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your response.
>> 
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21.txt

2016-03-18 Thread internet-drafts 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF.

Title   : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
Authors : Ladislav Lhotka
  Acee Lindem
Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21.txt
Pages   : 68
Date: 2016-03-17

Abstract:
   This document contains a specification of three YANG modules and one
   submodule.  Together they form the core routing data model which
   serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing
   subsystem.  It is expected that these modules will be augmented by
   additional YANG modules defining data models for routing protocols,
   route filters and other functions.  The core routing data model
   provides common building blocks for such extensions - routes, routing
   information bases (RIB), and routing protocols.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] deviation that changes config true to false: deviate add or replace?

2016-03-18 Thread Larsson, Gustav 
Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund je 17.3.2016 ob 21:32 napisal:
> > "Larsson, Gustav"  wrote:
> > The argument "replace" replaces properties of the target node.  The
> > > properties to replace are identified by substatements to the
> > > "deviate" statement.  The properties to replace MUST exist in the
> > > target node.
> > >
> > > /x/y is config true by default even though config is not explictly 
> > > given. Section 7.19.1 of RFC 6020 is not clear about whether config 
> > > is considered to exist when defaulted.
> > Don't you think it is clear how the config value is inherited?
> >
> >If "config" is not specified, the default is the same as the parent
> >schema node's "config" value.  If the parent node is a "case" node,
> >the value is the same as the "case" node's parent "choice" node.
> >
> >If the top node does not specify a "config" statement, the default is
> >"true".
> >
> >
> > This text doesn't use the words "config property", this could probably 
> > be clarified.
> >
>
> What needs to be clarified is the definition of "property". I always read
> this as "substatement": "units", "default", "require-instance", "when",
> "if-feature", "ordered-by" are all being referred to as "properties" and
> those are not inherited. On the other hand, "mandatory" is never referred
> to as a "property".
>
> Also, "refine" statement text, which is practically analogous to "deviation",
> explicitly uses "statement" for refinements (config included).

I agree that the definition of "property" needs to be clarified.

Another way of looking at it is whether "property" refers to the (syntactic)
substatement or the (semantic) value. When the config value is inherited,
the config substatement is syntactically absent but the config value is
semantically present. It is unclear whether the "config property" is
considered to be (syntactically) absent or (semantically) present for the
purposes of deviate statements.

> Our implementation requires "add", if no "config" substatement is present
> in the target node (as did early versions of pyang, if I'm not mistaken).
>
>Jernej

That's what I was concerned about. The latest pyang (1.6) seems to take
the opposite approach by requiring "replace".

Gustav

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang

2016-03-18 Thread Robert Wilton 

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.

Thanks,
Rob


On 16/03/2016 18:18, Kent Watsen wrote:
[This regards the new pre-adoption process described by 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15520.html]


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of the preparation for WG Last Call, are you aware of any IPR 
that applies to draft identified above?  Please state either:


"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?  If yes to the 
above, please state either:


"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer 
the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you 
are aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the 
next stage until a response has been received from each author and 
listed contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS 
MESSAGE’S TO LINES.


If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not 
listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations 
under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if 
you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain 
from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your 
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed 
above and 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.


Thank you,
NETMOD WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your 
response.




___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-06: (with COMMENT)

2016-03-18 Thread Stephen Farrell 
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata/



--
COMMENT:
--


Section 9: You could maybe add a sentence recommending
to not store security or privacy sensitive information
in annotations (unless it's really needed).


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang

2016-03-18 Thread David Ball 

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

David

On 16/03/2016 18:18, Kent Watsen wrote:
[This regards the new pre-adoption process described by 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15520.html]


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of the preparation for WG Last Call, are you aware of any IPR 
that applies to draft identified above?  Please state either:


"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?  If yes to the 
above, please state either:


"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer 
the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you 
are aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the 
next stage until a response has been received from each author and 
listed contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS 
MESSAGE’S TO LINES.


If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not 
listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations 
under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if 
you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain 
from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your 
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed 
above and 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.


Thank you,
NETMOD WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your 
response.




--
David Ball


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod