> On Jan 11, 2016, at 1:15 AM, 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 unpublished modules SHOULD use the URN prefix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 modules
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
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
>
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > 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 wrote:
> Lad
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:58:52PM +0100, Dean Bogdanovic wrote:
>
> >
> > For the sake of clarity, I personally would prefer to have a single
> > term. I think Linux packet filters call things rules. I think BSD
> > packet filtering calls things rules. Wikipedia seem say that packet
> > filters
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
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
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 lifeti
> 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
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 0
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 syste
>-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 w
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, hen
> 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 wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>
>>
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. When a configuration change for any intend
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 Grammel wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D. Whe
> 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 configuration change for any intended configu
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 relationship between “applied” and
> >> “intended
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 configuration change for any intended configura
> 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 Grammel wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D. When
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 clarify what 1-1 means here.
In the conte
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 configuration change for any intended configuration
node has been successfully applied to the server (e.g. not
On 1/11/16, 3:11 PM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote:
>
>> 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 14:25, Gert Grammel 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 clarify what 1-1 means here.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Pho
> 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 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D.
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 configuration change for any intended configuration
> > >
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 says:
>> > D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration
>> >
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:54, 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 configuration change for any intended configuration
>>> node has been succ
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 the server (e.g. not
> > fail
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 to absent hardware) the
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 to absent hardware) then the
existence and value of the corresponding applied
Yes, this is correct. We agreed to this explicitly.
—Tom
> On Jan 11, 2016:6:29 AM, at 6:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> 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
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 a
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 1.
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 requir
Are there any other opinions on switching YANG version for ACL model from 1.0
to 1.1? Would like to get more opinions on this, besides Martin.
Dean
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Dean Bogdanovic mailto:ivand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 1:09 PM, J
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? Ref
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
> > > unpublished modules SHOULD use the URN pre
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:".
> >
> > There are two issues with thi
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
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
40 matches
Mail list logo
