> On 19 Apr 2016, at 17:35, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 19 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The ABNF for "default" is wrong in the deviate-*-stmt (add, replace,
> >>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:23:51PM +, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen wrote:
> > > I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some
> of
> > > the questions, so I apologize if my response
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:23:51PM +, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen wrote:
> > I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some of
> > the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite answer the
> > questions. I'd like to point out
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:23:51PM +, Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen wrote:
> I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some of
> the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite answer the
> questions. I'd like to point out that the request for "rdns" URN is not
I'm not an expert on XML namespaces and I'm a little confused by some of
the questions, so I apologize if my response below does not quite answer the
questions. I'd like to point out that the request for "rdns" URN is not to
prevent
the use of URLs. The request for "rdns" URN is to allow an enter
Dear all,
Here is part 1 of my AD review.
I found this useful:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt
- Do we want to mention RESTCONF in the abstract? From the new charter:
The NE
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 19 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The ABNF for "default" is wrong in the deviate-*-stmt (add, replace,
> delete)
> >> Is says [default-stmt] but it should be *default-stm
> On 19 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The ABNF for "default" is wrong in the deviate-*-stmt (add, replace, delete)
>> Is says [default-stmt] but it should be *default-stmt
>
> Thanks, fixed.
>
> But for deviate-replace, it is not clear what
Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The ABNF for "default" is wrong in the deviate-*-stmt (add, replace, delete)
> Is says [default-stmt] but it should be *default-stmt
Thanks, fixed.
But for deviate-replace, it is not clear what the correct answer is.
This is pretty clear:
leaf foo {
type in
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:20:36AM +, William Ivory wrote:
> So would it be a fair summary to say that it is allowed to change from a
> specific type to a union consisting only of those types, but that adding
> different types on top of the existing type is not recommended.
>
> Which JSON do
So would it be a fair summary to say that it is allowed to change from a
specific type to a union consisting only of those types, but that adding
different types on top of the existing type is not recommended.
Which JSON document are you referring to?
Thanks,
William
-Original Message
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:02:24AM +, William Ivory wrote:
> OK - but changing from int8 to int16 still allows all previously
> allowed values, and simply adds some more, making it less
> restrictive. That isn't allowed though as noted in the bullet point
> from section 10 below.
Obviously,
OK - but changing from int8 to int16 still allows all previously allowed
values, and simply adds some more, making it less restrictive. That isn't
allowed though as noted in the bullet point from section 10 below.
What about extending a union that previously included say just strings to
includ
A type is essentially defining a set of allowed values.
If this set of values does not change (and the semantics associated
with the values do not change), then you can change the type used in
the type statement.
/js
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:30:14AM +, William Ivory wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Secti
Hi,
Section 10 of the YANG RFC covers updating modules while maintaining
backwards-compatibiility. I have a question about whether the following
statement allows for a string type to be replaced with a union comprising
solely of string types, so long as the overall set of strings accepted was
15 matches
Mail list logo
