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

[As a contributor] This update contains the following changes: 1) removed “(see term)” throughout 2) moved 2nd-half of the Asynchronous Configuration Operation term to new requirement 2-B 3) moved the Backwards Compatibility to new requirement 5 4) made some may/MAY/SHOULD/MUST changes (as

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt

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 Working Group of the IETF. Title : Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Handling of Operational State Authors :

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Lisa (Yi) Huang wrote: > > > > On 1/22/16, 4:40 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" > mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > a...@cisco.com > wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/22/16, 12:56 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ebben Aries" >>

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

On 1/22/16, 4:40 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > > >On 1/22/16, 12:56 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ebben Aries" > wrote: > >> >>On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >>> 1. This draft defines two module, one is IETF-PACKET-FIELDS, the other >>>is ietf-access-control-list modul

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Hi, The description-stmt is good enough. Let's stop the feature-creep and get YANG 1.1 done. Just keep using your proprietary extensions that tells your proprietary tools how to special process the i-i value. Andy On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrot

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Andy Bierman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am strongly against adding more features to YANG 1.1 at this time. > > > > Do you refer to the proprietary extension to restrict i-is? If so, I > > agree

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis

Hi, I never liked submodules. IMO just more IETF over-engineering. They have always confused customers into thinking they are just modules within modules. Wrong. They merely partition YANG modules into multiple syntactic bundles. There is only 1 module namespace. Actually I think it doesn't mat

Re: [netmod] Validation question

Lada, Thanks for drawing my attention to this section. I hadn't noticed this advice. Perhaps corresponding things need to be said about the XML? Always use a prefix on identity values, even if the default namespace (YANG module) is the module that defined the identity. When importing a namespace

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis

It probably wouldn't (unless the tool implements an algorithm similar to the Git algorithm that detects "move" rather than "delete" + "add"). But given that you could delete it in one revision and then add it back with a different name in a subsequent revision should it really be forbidden? As I

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis

Hi, The changed submodule name looks like a new name and the old submodule was deleted. How does a tool determine it is some old submodule but the name was changed? Andy On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:33 AM, William Lupton wrote: > Thanks for the responses. One clarification below on what is def

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am strongly against adding more features to YANG 1.1 at this time. > > Do you refer to the proprietary extension to restrict i-is? If so, I > agree (and Balazs just did in a separate email a

Re: [netmod] Comparison of structural-mount and ysdl drafts

> On 22 Jan 2016, at 14:28, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Lada, > > Please see inline ... > > On 22/01/2016 12:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Robert Wilton writes: >> >>> Hi Lada, Martin, >>> >>> I've reviewed both draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount-00 and >>> draft-lhotka-netmod-ysdl-00.

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum questions on RFC 6087bis

Thanks for the responses. One clarification below on what is definitely a minor point! > On 22 Jan 2016, at 00:18, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:45 AM, William Lupton > wrote: > > 2. Rules re changing submodule names > > > > Section 5.7 (Lif

Re: [netmod] Comparison of structural-mount and ysdl drafts

Hi Lada, Please see inline ... On 22/01/2016 12:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Robert Wilton writes: Hi Lada, Martin, I've reviewed both draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount-00 and draft-lhotka-netmod-ysdl-00. In comparing these two drafts, the main differences that I perceive are: 1) stru

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Hi, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I am strongly against adding more features to YANG 1.1 at this time. Do you refer to the proprietary extension to restrict i-is? If so, I agree (and Balazs just did in a separate email as well) that this is out of scope. /martin > The deadline for new feat

Re: [netmod] Comparison of structural-mount and ysdl drafts

Robert Wilton writes: > Hi Lada, Martin, > > I've reviewed both draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount-00 and > draft-lhotka-netmod-ysdl-00. > > In comparing these two drafts, the main differences that I perceive are: > > 1) structural-mount allows the mounted data model to publish its > suppo

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

On 1/22/16, 12:56 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ebben Aries" wrote: > >On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >> 1. This draft defines two module, one is IETF-PACKET-FIELDS, the other >>is ietf-access-control-list module, >> I am wondering whether ietf-packet-fields module can be defined in more >>ge

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Hello, This is a clarification not a new feature. I am 100%  sure all implementations already support the lexical representation of instance-identifiers, otherwise they would not be able to read and write them. For new features I agree it is too late. regards Bala

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Hi, I am strongly against adding more features to YANG 1.1 at this time. The deadline for new features has long passed. Andy On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Balazs Lengyel < balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hello, > I agree we don't need to change the encoding, but we need to define ho

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Good for me. I agree. Practically it allows me to use rematch() to control the name of the lists/containers/leafs appearing in an instance identifier. Balazs On 2016-01-22 09:56, Martin Bjorklund wrote: How about: NEW: In particular, any XPath expression evaluations are done using the

Re: [netmod] Validation question

Hi William, YANG uses XPath 1.0, and so the equality tests mean *string equality*. That's why 6087bis recommends in sec. 5.6.4: XPath expressions that contain a literal value representing a YANG identity SHOULD always include the declared prefix of the module where the identity is define

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > I agree we don't need to change the encoding, but we need to define how that > encoding is visible/available when evaluating Xpath expressions. Today the > draft > says: > - instance-identifier does not have a canonical format > XPath uses the canonical format >

Re: [netmod] Constraining instance-identifiers

Hello, I agree we don't need to change the encoding, but we need to define how that encoding is visible/available when evaluating Xpath expressions. Today the draft says: - instance-identifier does not have a canonical format - XPath uses the canonical format The

Re: [netmod] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount-00.txt

Hi, Robert Varga wrote: > On 2015-12-18 09:23, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This draft proposes a mechanism for mounting YANG models in other > > models. It focuses on the *schema* only, not on the underlying > > mechanism to implement the data (like "peer mount"). > > Hello Martin,