On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Have you thought through implications / possibilities for existing
> models, e.g., interfaces?
>
First we have to define various forms of relocation.
(1) Aggregation of datastores
The simplest form is aggregation.
It is possibl
Andy,
Have you thought through implications / possibilities for existing models,
e.g., interfaces?
Thanks,
Lou
On July 26, 2015 4:41:32 PM Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi Acee,
I agree that "Relocatable YANG" would be very useful, and have been
thinking about the problem for awhile. I think the
Hi Acee,
I agree that "Relocatable YANG" would be very useful, and have been
thinking about the problem for awhile. I think the key is to precisely
define a protocol-independent document root for each of the various
YANG XPath contexts. In most cases the expression can be
automatically relocated
I completely agree. We definitely will make use if this in the new models
being developed in the routing area.
Lou
On July 26, 2015 1:50:00 PM "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
I think being able to place a given model anywhere in the device tree
would be useful and this would allow a model to b
Hi,
I agree it should be a WG (maybe IESG) decision whether YANG 1.1
should be published ASAP and a new version started right away to update it.
The RFC publication process is not that hard to solve. The tool and user
confusion caused by all these versions is another matter.
more inline...
On
I think being able to place a given model anywhere in the device tree
would be useful and this would allow a model to be rooted in different
locations on different devices. Similarly, we’d need the ability to prefix
XPATH references to data nodes in the model with the root.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/20/1
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 03:15:45PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >
> > > This is the
Lada,
there won't be any decision as long as there is not a concrete
actionable proposal to be discussed. Such a proposal does not have to
be 'complete rewrite' but it needs to be a detailed list of what would
have to change so that it is possible to assess such a proposal.
/js
On Sun, Jul 26, 2
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 04:17:26AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to open another issue for
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to open another issue for YANG 1.1,
> > because I don't want to have 1.1 and then 1.2 right away.
> >
> On 26 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> Any are concrete actionable proposals?
Start rewriting 6020bis, but only if we decide to go that way - it is a
difficult decision. I will be slightly in favor of doing so.
Lada
>
> /js
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:53:41PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> What might be a new task for YANG is to define general syntax for identifying
> different trees and inter-tree references.
>
This is not the time to add new features to YANG 1.1.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs
Any are concrete actionable proposals?
/js
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> > be NETCONF-specific. Why does YANG define extensions
> >
> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:17, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to open another issue for YANG 1.1,
> because I don't want to have 1.1 and then 1.2 right away.
> The NETMOD WG should evaluate the different ways to
> support ephemeral state, based on Jeff's draft.
Rather than implement
> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> be NETCONF-specific. Why does YANG define extensions
> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
>
This is essenti
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 03:15:45PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> > This is the summary of the discussion of YANG 1.1 issue Y60 at the
> > IETF 93 meeting in Prague:
> >
> > - It is OK for a
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to open another issue for YANG 1.1,
> because I don't want to have 1.1 and then 1.2 right away.
> The NETMOD WG should evaluate the different ways to
> support ephemeral state, based on Jeff's draft.
>
The NETMOD
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:26:16PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> be NETCONF-specific. Why does YANG define extensions
> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
>
So wha
18 matches
Mail list logo
