Andy Bierman writes:
> Hi,
>
> I entered a new 6087bis issue:
> https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues/27
>
> I agree the conventions need to be spelled out.
> IMO there are many problematic examples in 6020bis.
> The convention "..." is used and some newbie could think
> it was some vali
Alex,
On February 3, 2016 8:35:54 PM "Alexander Clemm (alex)" wrote:
Hi Kent,
I do think that we should have a slot for that draft as well. The
structural mount case is a variation of the alias mount case;
Insofar as much that Structural mount and YSDL both have a model that is
used to
Hi Kent,
I do think that we should have a slot for that draft as well. The structural
mount case is a variation of the alias mount case; it is certainly possible to
have a continuum of solutions that allows to incorporate structural mount as
well as alias mount and peer mount (the latter possi
Hi,
I entered a new 6087bis issue:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues/27
I agree the conventions need to be spelled out.
IMO there are many problematic examples in 6020bis.
The convention "..." is used and some newbie could think
it was some valid YANG syntax. There are also example
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:19:33AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>> module foomod {
>>
>> namespace"http://example.com/foomod";;
>>
>> prefix "foo";
>>
>> container top {
>> leaf foo {
>> type uint8;
> On 03 Feb 2016, at 17:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:37, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lada,
>> I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete
>> example modules and short module snippets that are u
Hi,
Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> I was led to believe that the current set of drafts subsume
> draft-clemm-netmod-mount.
The mechanism in draft-clemm-netmod-mount primarily mounts remote
datastores into a datastore.
Structural mount focuses on combining *schemas*. This approach can
support differen
I don't see how draft Clemm addresses our draft's use case. That said, if
alex thinks it does - let's hear about it.
Alex,
Can you look at the mail I sent the other day about our planned usage and
see what you think - and let us know what you find?
Thanks,
Lou
On February 3, 2016 2:27:44
I was led to believe that the current set of drafts subsume
draft-clemm-netmod-mount. If that’s not true, then absolutely there should be
a slot for that draft to be discussed as well. Please advise.
Kent
On 2/3/16, 9:07 AM, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
>Hi Kent,
>
>There is also another Ya
I don’t think we need to block on that. The 1.1 drafts are nearly done
and ready to go according to Juergen, so we shouldn’t wait. If something
happens to change that causes something to break compilation-wise, that is
easily fixed in the edit stages. Also, since your document refere
Tom,
One mailing list suggestion was using yang 1.1 construct. If we do it without
that suggestion, then the model doesn’t require update, but it is better with
this suggestion
Dean
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:52 PM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>
>
> Will your model require any updates once 1.1 i
Tom,
We will publish ACL model requiring YANG 1.1 as per discussion on the list
Dean
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Lisa (Yi) Huang wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> We discussed the review comments in the working group in offline meeting.
> Will publish a new draft to address comments. Thanks,
>
> Lisa
>
Will your model require any updates once 1.1 is ratified? We don’t
want to predicate having a bunch of models move forward on the 1.1 work moving
forward.
—Tom
> On Feb 3, 2016:11:45 AM, at 11:45 AM, Dean Bogdanovic
> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> We will publish ACL model requiri
Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > William Ivory wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > My colleagues and I are looking for clarification of the last point in
> > > Section 10 of YANG 1.0:
> > >
> > > ' In statements that have any data defini
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> William Ivory wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My colleagues and I are looking for clarification of the last point in
> > Section 10 of YANG 1.0:
> >
> > ' In statements that have any data definition statements as
> >substatements, th
Hi Martin,
Thanks - that looks good to me.
William
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: 03 February 2016 17:06
To: William Ivory
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Where can I insert new YANG substatements?
Hi,
William Ivory wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
William Ivory wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My colleagues and I are looking for clarification of the last point in
> Section 10 of YANG 1.0:
>
> ' In statements that have any data definition statements as
>substatements, those data definition substatements MUST NOT be
>reordered.'
>
> We unde
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:37, Benoit Claise wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lada,
> >>
> I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete
> example modules and short module snippets that are used for explaining a
> certain YANG language or encodin
Tom,
We discussed the review comments in the working group in offline meeting.
Will publish a new draft to address comments. Thanks,
Lisa
On 2/1/16, 8:01 AM, "netmod on behalf of Nadeau Thomas"
wrote:
>
> ACL Doc Authors:
>
> What is your status and plan to address the numerous tec
Yes, the meeting times are in timezone EST. Doodle should display the
timezone and let you set your own.
Kent
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Kent - I’m assuming the poll is EST given that is where you are located.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>> On 2/3/16, 8:50 AM, "Ke
Kent - I’m assuming the poll is EST given that is where you are located.
Thanks,
Acee
On 2/3/16, 8:50 AM, "Kent Watsen" wrote:
>
>No problem, I just created another poll for the following week:
>
> http://doodle.com/poll/byugp4umy2m4fwdz
>
>The first poll is now deleted. For the couple of
> On 03 Feb 2016, at 15:35, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Hi Lada,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply.
>>> Hi Benoit,
>>>
>>> thank you for the review, please see my responses inline.
>>>
>>> Benoit Claise writes:
>
> [...]
>
o identity,
There is n
Benoit Claise wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
> > Hi Benoit,
> >
> > thank you for the review, please see my responses inline.
> >
> > Benoit Claise writes:
[...]
> >> o identity,
> >>
> >> There is no identity definition in the RFC 6020 terminology section.
> > Maybe i
Hi Kent,
There is also another Yang Mount related draft: draft-clemm-netmod-mount-03
Now, this draft doesn't directly address the RTG DT Arch team use-case,
and seems to cover two more complex problem scenarios (remote mount and
alias mount), but these do appear to be a valid mount use cases (
No problem, I just created another poll for the following week:
http://doodle.com/poll/byugp4umy2m4fwdz
The first poll is now deleted. For the couple of folks that put values there,
please fill in your values again on this new poll.
Kent
On 2/3/16, 6:59 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)"
> On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:37, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> Hi Lada,
>>
I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete
example modules and short module snippets that are used for explaining a
certain YANG language or encoding issue. If you look at this particular
Hi Lada,
I agree with Juergen that 6087bis should distinguish between complete
example modules and short module snippets that are used for explaining a
certain YANG language or encoding issue. If you look at this particular
example, then changing the JSON document on p. 6 to
{
"examp
> On 03 Feb 2016, at 13:58, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> Hi Lada,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>> Hi Benoit,
>>
>> thank you for the review, please see my responses inline.
>>
>> Benoit Claise writes:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is
Hi Lada,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Hi Benoit,
thank you for the review, please see my responses inline.
Benoit Claise writes:
Dear all,
I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now
ready and that the write-up will be completed end of this week.
In order to speed u
Hi Benoit,
thank you for the review, please see my responses inline.
Benoit Claise writes:
> Dear all,
>
> I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now
> ready and that the write-up will be completed end of this week.
> In order to speed up the publication, here is my A
On 2/3/16, 1:18 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote:
>
>> On 03 Feb 2016, at 03:24, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>>
>> [Chair hat on]
>>
>> Given the number of competing/complementing drafts involved, and the
>>general lack of discussion on any of them, a virtual interim meeting
>>might be an expedient wa
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:55 AM, William Ivory wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
> I was hoping for more than 'I think' and ' Hmm. The rule is not clear.
> In fact, one can argue that it is wrong:'. Is anyone willing / able to
> give me a definitive answer?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
> -Original Message---
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:19:33AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> module foomod {
>
> namespace"http://example.com/foomod";;
>
> prefix "foo";
>
> container top {
>leaf foo {
> type uint8;
>}
> }
>}
>
> Use "example-" in the module name, as men
Okay, I set up a doodle poll to help us pick a time:
http://doodle.com/poll/dv68psxn33yt4ehf
Would the draft authors and other key participants please fill in their
availability?
Thanks,
Kent
On 2/3/16, 1:18 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote:
>
>> On 03 Feb 2016, at 03:24, Kent Watsen
Dear all,
I understood from the chairs that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is now
ready and that the write-up will be completed end of this week.
In order to speed up the publication, here is my AD review.
- Editorial:
This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
st
Hi Lada,
I was hoping for more than 'I think' and ' Hmm. The rule is not clear. In
fact, one can argue that it is wrong:'. Is anyone willing / able to give me a
definitive answer?
Thanks,
William
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: 03 February 201
Hi William,
> On 03 Feb 2016, at 09:58, William Ivory wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My colleagues and I are looking for clarification of the last point in
> Section 10 of YANG 1.0:
>
> ‘ In statements that have any data definition statements as
>substatements, those data definition substatement
Hi,
My colleagues and I are looking for clarification of the last point in Section
10 of YANG 1.0:
' In statements that have any data definition statements as
substatements, those data definition substatements MUST NOT be
reordered.'
We understand that existing statements must not be re
Ladislav Lhotka je 3.2.2016 ob 6:59 napisal:
On 03 Feb 2016, at 05:02, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 02 Feb 2016, at 18:25, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka je 2.2.2016 ob 12:25 nap
39 matches
Mail list logo
