> On 18 Jun 2016, at 01:47, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language'
> (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14.txt) as Proposed Standard
>
> This document is the product o
Dear all,
The NETMOD and NETCONF WGs thank you for referencing the work of the
IETF and contributing to the drafts you mention through the IETF
process. This is by far the best way to complete the work in a timely
manner and continues to foster the open and cooperative working
relationship be
It was actually a YANG default that triggered my original question. If
repetition were officially forbidden or discouraged then presumably it would be
permissible for pyang (and other tools) to check for it and issue an error or
warning if it finds it. W.
> On 18 Jun 2016, at 17:54, Andy Bierma
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:52 AM, t.petch wrote:
> Lou
>
> You say below
> "
> > It's just a ro version/view of the config data. I'm not sure why this
> > is problematic. Perhaps I'm just missing something.
> "
>
> I see it as a fundamental change (to NETCONF). Tracking other lists
> (e.g.I2RS)
Hi Tom,
On June 19, 2016 5:54:20 AM t.petch wrote:
Lou
You say below
"
It's just a ro version/view of the config data. I'm not sure why this
is problematic. Perhaps I'm just missing something.
"
I see it as a fundamental change (to NETCONF). Tracking other lists
(e.g.I2RS) I repeatedly
Lou
You say below
"
> It's just a ro version/view of the config data. I'm not sure why this
> is problematic. Perhaps I'm just missing something.
"
I see it as a fundamental change (to NETCONF). Tracking other lists
(e.g.I2RS) I repeatedly get the sense that they have not grasped what
configur
