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

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 10/01/2016 11:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: The draft is quite succinct and I’m not sure how you and Juergen do not agree that there are requirements beyond intended/applied state. Perhaps you do not agree with them?

Re: [netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:15:26AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently, 6087bis says that standards-track, published and > > unpublished modules SHOULD use the URN prefix > > "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:".

Re: [netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:15:26AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, 6087bis says that standards-track, published and > unpublished modules SHOULD use the URN prefix > "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:". > > There are two issues with this: > > 1. We already publish experimental

[netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

Hi, Currently, 6087bis says that standards-track, published and unpublished modules SHOULD use the URN prefix "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:". There are two issues with this: 1. We already publish experimental modules w/ this prefix. (ietf-netconf-time and ietf-complex-types). So

Re: [netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:21:43AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:15:26AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Currently, 6087bis says that standards-track, published and > > >

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

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", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:02:30AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 10/01/2016 11:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >>The draft is quite succinct and I’m not sure how you and Juergen do not > >>agree that there are

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

On 1/11/16, 2:54 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi Gert, >> >> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: >> > >> > Lada, >> > >> > The requirement

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

> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:07, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > On 1/11/16, 2:54 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" > wrote: > >> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> Hi Gert, >>> On 11 Jan 2016, at

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

I think we discussed at one of the previous IETFs that we will use YANG 1.1 in the IETF once it is published. Please check the archives. If I am correct, then you would have to be fast with finishing the ACL model. /js On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:16:40PM +0100, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: > Are there

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

Hi Dean, I agree with Martin's proposed solution. I.e. switch to YANG 1.1, and use his proposed interface-state-ref & require-instance false solution. Thanks, Rob On 11/01/2016 11:16, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: Are there any other opinions on switching YANG version for ACL model from 1.0 to

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

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi Gert, > > > On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: > > > > Lada, > > > > The requirement says: > > D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration > > node has been successfully applied to

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

On 1/11/16, 3:13 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:13PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> My opinion is that there is a 1-1 relationship between “applied” and >> “intended” config. >> > >I do not understand. Please

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

On 11/01/2016 14:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi Gert, On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: Lada, The requirement says: D. When a

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

Hi Gert, > On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: > > Lada, > > The requirement says: > D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration > node has been successfully applied to the server (e.g. not > failed, nor deferred due

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

On 11/01/2016 14:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:15, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Gert, Lada, On 11/01/2016 13:48, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi Gert, On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: Lada, The requirement says: D.

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:50:58AM -0500, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: >> Juergen, >> >> Please see answers inline >> >> Dean >> >>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>

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

On 11/01/2016 16:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:30:18PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: Going back to your original problem, my understanding is that the only solution in YANG today is to have a config false hierarchy to represent system-controlled objects whose

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

>-Original Message- >From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka >Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36 >To: Robert Wilton >Cc: netmod@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries > > >> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton

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

Hi Gert, Please see inline ... On 11/01/2016 16:19, Gert Grammel wrote: -Original Message- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36 To: Robert Wilton Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and

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

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:30:18PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Going back to your original problem, my understanding is that the only > solution in YANG today is to have a config false hierarchy to represent > system-controlled objects whose lifetime is independent from > configuration,

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

On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi Gert, On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert

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

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:20:05PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > On 1/11/16, 3:13 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > wrote: > > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:13PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >> > >> My opinion is that there is a 1-1

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

> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:15, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Gert, Lada, > > On 11/01/2016 13:48, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi Gert, >> >>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: >>> >>> Lada, >>> >>> The requirement says: >>> D. When a

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

> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund

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

Rob, I realize that the pre-conditions of the example made weren't clear. There is certainly the possibility to pre-configure a node in the intended config and wait until some HW is inserted. Indeed in a Telco environment this is the preferred case and will stay so for a while. Lada mentioned