Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD YANG 1.1

Hi, we will use this etherpad to take notes: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-netmod-virtual-interim-2015-09-14?useMonospaceFont=true On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:19:49AM +, NETMOD Working Group wrote: > > Hello, > > NETMOD Working Group invites you to join this WebEx

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

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

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Hi, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG > 1.0 module. > > But should it also be ok for a 1.0 module to import a 1.1 module? > > If we make this illegal, we might run into problems. For example, > ietf-ip

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-04.txt

Hi, current text in 6087bis-04 (Section 5.6.4): XPath expressions for 'when' statements SHOULD NOT reference the context node or any descendant nodes of the context node. They MAY reference descendant nodes if the 'when' statement is contained within an 'augment' statement, and the

[netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD YANG 1.1

Hello, NETMOD Working Group invites you to join this WebEx meeting. NETMOD YANG 1.1 Monday, September 14, 2015 5:00 pm | Europe Summer Time (Berlin, GMT+02:00) | 1 hr JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mc804fb94cb5c16c44bc6c9f37cf13a81 Meeting number: 641 534 634

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:19:14PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:19:14PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG > > 1.0 module. > > > > But should it also be ok for a 1.0 module to import a 1.1 module? > >

Re: [netmod] Y26 again, sorry

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 06:19:20PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > >> Let's look at a slightly more complex hypothetical case to tease > >> out how folks *want* things to work. Assume the following have > >> been defined: > >> > >> - base module M > >> - augmentation Q > >> - augmentation R

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

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 > counters/statistics it influences, which might be in different

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:19:14PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I think we agreed that is ok for a YANG 1.1 module to import a YANG > > > 1.0

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

Martin Bjorklund writes: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:19:14PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I think we agreed that is

Re: [netmod] Y60 - coexistence with YANG 1.0

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:54:59PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Sure. The use case is for example servers that implement ietf-ip > (which imports ietf-interfaces), and ietf-interfaces. Suppose we > update ietf-interfaces to 1.1. It should still be ok for a server to > implement ietf-ip

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

Hi Kent, Tom, I've added the 3 requirements issues that I raised on Friday. I also added a further one based on some of the discussion over the weekend: The definition of "applied configuration" is slightly vague, and there seems to be multiple interpretations of it on the WG alias, and hence

Re: [netmod] Preliminary Meeting Minutes from Interim Meeting 9/10/2015

We agreed to set it up for Thursday, October 1 from 10AM-12 EST. I setup the WebEx which was sent to the list. I’ll make sure the announcement goes out via the normal channels too. The purpose will be to continue down the agenda we did not finish on the last meeting. Please don’t

Re: [netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements

These GitHub issues were opened per this thread: - https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/1 - https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/2 - https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/3 Thank you Rob! Kent On 9/11/15, 9:28 AM, "Lou Berger"

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

In case folks missed it, Appendix A (pasted below for convenience) roughly describes where each requirement came from. As it says, some liberty was taken to adjust the text based on what looked liked consensus from on list discussions; this is why they're not 1-1. Regardless if our

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

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > [As a contributor] > > > This raises the issue "how does the client know that a missing applied > > value means there is no applied value vs. the server does not know > > and does not support reporting the applied value

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

GitHub issue #4 has been raised to track the predominant concern raised in this thread: https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/4 Thanks again Rob! Kent From: Kent Watsen > Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:12 PM To: Andy Bierman

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

Rob, thanks for clarifying the need for 6B. No new GitHub issues filed for this thread. Kent On 9/14/15, 10:16 AM, "Rob Shakir" wrote: > >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

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

[As a contributor] > This raises the issue "how does the client know that a missing applied > value means there is no applied value vs. the server does not know > and does not support reporting the applied value for a particular leaf?" > > None of the solutions allow a client to know that.

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

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > >Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned > > >on the call that for ip addresses there would be three lists; one for > >

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

> On 14 Sep 2015, at 10:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned on

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

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: * The requirements talk about both synchronous and asynchronous systems (1(D), 3, 3(A)) but really only address the behaviour for asynchronous systems.

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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > >Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned > >on the call that for ip addresses there would be three lists; one for > >intended, one for applied, and one in derived state, where the one in > >derived

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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:48:55PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > All solutions expect the server to be able to determine applied status for > every leaf > in the intended config. All solutions require basically the same internal > API support > to check the relevant applied config or operational

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

Hi, On 14/09/2015 09:31, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 14 Sep 2015, at 10:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Then Lada brought up the example of ip