Re: [netmod] [Netconf] YANG library draft. WG check of last call edits

Hi, I found one thing that may need clarification: consider a module containing deviations that's present in the "module" list as required. What happens if such a module does not appear in the "deviation" list of a module to which its deviation(s) are supposed to apply? Does it mean that such devi

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] YANG library draft. WG check of last call edits

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > I found one thing that may need clarification: consider a module > containing deviations that's present in the "module" list as > required. What happens if such a module does not appear in the "deviation" > list of a module to which its deviation(s) are supposed t

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] YANG library draft. WG check of last call edits

> On 08 Feb 2016, at 11:12, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found one thing that may need clarification: consider a module >> containing deviations that's present in the "module" list as >> required. What happens if such a module does not appear in the "deviat

[netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

Hello, IMHO the case, when 2 deviation statements point at the same target should be clarified and declared as an error or implementation dependent feature. I see no good way of deciding which deviation statement has precedence. Balazs Forwa

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

> On 08 Feb 2016, at 12:28, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > Hello, > IMHO the case, when 2 deviation statements point at the same target should be > clarified and declared as an error or implementation dependent feature. I see > no good way of deciding which deviation statement has precedence. I th

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:09:37AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > I don't really follow your point. >

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

Hi, On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if the new datastore was for the intended configuration, and that the applied configuration was stored in the same datasto

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: [...] > > IMO, this solution is a non-starter. > OK, and yet my understanding is that the folks requesting a solution > to the opstate problem are saying that the applied datastore approach > is also a non-starter, or at least

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

Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if the new > >> datastore was for the intended configuration, and that the applied > >>

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

On 2016-05-02 18:34, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: >> >> 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if the new >> datastore was for the intended configuration, and that the applied >> configuratio

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Hi Martin, On 08/02/2016 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: [...] IMO, this solution is a non-starter. OK, and yet my understanding is that the folks requesting a solution to the opstate problem are saying that the applied datastor

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

Hi Martin, On 08/02/2016 14:38, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: Hi, On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if the new datastore was for the intended

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:21:52PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > So, IIRC, your concern is specifically that a generic YANG client > library cannot validate that the RPC reply is well formed against the > schema without knowledge about the request. Is that correct? > None of the existing too

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Juergen, On 2/8/16 5:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > None of the existing tools that assume YANG defined data is XML > encoded according to RFC 6020 will not be able to process data in a > new encoding. Reversing you're negatives you are asserting that all existing tools that assume that Y

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

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:30:02PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > >>2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if the new > >>datastore was for the intended con

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Hi, The XML namespace matches the YANG namespace-stmt. The JSON module name prefix matches the YANG module name. All YANG tools use these instance document mechanisms to find the correct YANG schema to apply. All YANG tools will correctly decide the opstate reporting does not match the YANG modul

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

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:53:57PM +, Gert Grammel wrote: > > > >This is not what is being proposed. We always had > > > >[candidate] -> [running] -> operational state > > > >(and I mark configuration data stores in []). Both [candidate] and > >[running] have the same configuration data model

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:13PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > Juergen, > > On 2/8/16 5:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > None of the existing tools that assume YANG defined data is XML > > encoded according to RFC 6020 will not be able to process data in a > > new encoding. > > Reversing

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

On 08/02/2016 16:31, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:30:02PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi, On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I would prefer if th

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

Hi Juergen, I think the indentation in our emails play havoc which is confusing me too. The key point I am making is: The mapping of what is called intended-config onto data stores would deserve more detailed discussion. It seems the authors of draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02.txt had in mind to

[netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

Hi Juergen, (All) I've change the subject line as I'm really commenting on all three documented options in this message. On February 5, 2016 12:41:17 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Lou, > > there are things I find fundamentally flawed and things I find > somewhat flawed. I do not understand

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

Hi, Lou Berger wrote: > Hi Juergen, (All) > > I've change the subject line as I'm really commenting on all three > documented options in this message. > > On February 5, 2016 12:41:17 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > > Lou, > > > > there are things I find fundamentally flawed and things

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Hi Juergen, (All) > > I've change the subject line as I'm really commenting on all three > documented options in this message. > > On February 5, 2016 12:41:17 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > > Lou, > > > > there are things I find fundame

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

Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 08/02/2016 14:38, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 05/02/2016 17:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:22:03PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > 2. Personally, for a datastore solution, I

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 08/02/2016 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton wrote: > >> > >> On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: > > [...] > > > >>> IMO, this solution is a non-starter. > >> OK, and yet my understanding is that the folks requesting a solution >

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

Hi Andy, Thanks for the very good comments. Which solutions(s) were you commenting on -- you say "this" so is ambiguous. Lou On 2/8/2016 2:17 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Lou Berger > wrote: > > Hi Juergen, (All) > > I've chang

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

Martin, Thanks for the response. See below. On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Lou Berger wrote: >> Hi Juergen, (All) >> >> I've change the subject line as I'm really commenting on all three >> documented options in this message. >> >> On February 5, 2016 12:41:17 PM Juer

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

Hi, I was commenting on solution 1. Andy On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for the very good comments. > > Which solutions(s) were you commenting on -- you say "this" so is > ambiguous. > > Lou > > On 2/8/2016 2:17 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

Lou Berger wrote: > Martin, > Thanks for the response. See below. > > On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Lou Berger wrote: [...] > >> I think this is a question of perspective. I get that from a protocol > >> standpoint, and possibly even language standpoint, why

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

[retry] Martin, On 2/8/2016 3:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> Thanks for the response. See below. >> >> On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Lou Berger wrote: > [...] > But it's also clear that some in the WG would prefer

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

Hi, It should be up to the co-chairs to make consensus calls. The IETF 94 minutes indicate that "solution 2" (RPC-based) had consensus in the room. https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html I have not seen any evidence that room consensus has changed on the mailing lis

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

Thanks Andy -- It seems to me that there are aspects of your comments that apply to each... Lou On 2/8/2016 3:29 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > > I was commenting on solution 1. > > > Andy > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Lou Berger > wrote: > > Hi Andy, > >

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > On 08/02/2016 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Robert Wilton wrote: > > >> > > >> On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > >>> IMO, this solution is a non-sta

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

On 08/02/2016 19:41, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Martin, On 08/02/2016 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: [...] IMO, this solution is a non-starter. OK, and yet my understanding is that the folks reques

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 08/02/2016 19:41, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Martin, > >> > >> On 08/02/2016 13:45, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> Robert Wilton wrote: > On 06/02/2016 00:41, Andy Bierman wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> > > IMO, this sol

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

[As co-chair] Andy et al., Please keep in mind this message from Benoit: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg14585.html And note that Lou is trying to perform the analysis now. Thanks, Kent From: Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 3