Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > *From:* Andy Bierman, July 12, 2016 5:49 PM > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) > wrote: > > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > ] > > Sent:

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36:03AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Yes there is value in modeling conventions in general. > > I am trying to understand the value of this specific convention. >

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

2016-07-12 Thread Eric Voit (evoit)
From: Andy Bierman, July 12, 2016 5:49 PM On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) > wrote: > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > ] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:25 PM > > To: Eric Voit (evoit) > > Cc: Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco); >

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

2016-07-12 Thread Eric Voit (evoit)
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:25 PM > To: Eric Voit (evoit) > Cc: Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco); netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts > > On

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36:03AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > Yes there is value in modeling conventions in general. > I am trying to understand the value of this specific convention. > > If I have an RPC that asks for applied state, then it doesn't really matter > how the config and state is

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Lou Berger
Andy, This may be a bit OBE by the conversation on the list, but see below... On 7/12/2016 12:17 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Lou Berger > wrote: > > Acee, > > I personally was assuming we'd follow 3,

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > From: netmod on behalf of Andy Bierman < > a...@yumaworks.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM > To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" < > rwil...@cisco.com>

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
From: netmod > on behalf of Andy Bierman > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" > Cc:

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 12/07/2016 18:05, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> On 12/07/2016 17:17, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Robert Wilton
On 12/07/2016 18:05, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi Andy, On 12/07/2016 17:17, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Lou Berger

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > From: Andy Bierman > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM > To: Acee Lindem > Cc: Lou Berger , netmod WG > Subject: Re: [netmod] OpsState

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Robert Wilton
Hi Andy, On 12/07/2016 17:17, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Lou Berger > wrote: Acee, I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
From: Andy Bierman > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM To: Acee Lindem > Cc: Lou Berger >, netmod WG > Subject: Re:

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Andy, > > From: Andy Bierman > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM > To: Lou Berger > Cc: Acee Lindem , netmod WG > Subject: Re: [netmod]

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Hi Andy, From: Andy Bierman > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM To: Lou Berger > Cc: Acee Lindem >, netmod WG > Subject:

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

2016-07-12 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:24:11PM +, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > Hi Robert, > Hi Juergen, > > Robert: thanks for this comparison. Certainly the Event and Datastore > Subscription drafts would be users of whatever results from your and > Juergen’s efforts. > > A question on the

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Acee, > > I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand > the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're > thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? > >

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Lou Berger
Acee, I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? Thanks, Lou On 7/11/2016 12:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > While there are details

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

2016-07-12 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Hi Lou, I’m not advocating this #2. If you are going to rely on the revised data stores to obtain the information, you should go all the way to #3. For example, based on the control-plane-protocols in routing-cfg, we have separate top level containers for config state. +--rw routing +--rw

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

2016-07-12 Thread Eric Voit (evoit)
Hi Robert, Hi Juergen, Robert: thanks for this comparison. Certainly the Event and Datastore Subscription drafts would be users of whatever results from your and Juergen’s efforts. A question on the representation of the Ephemeral Datastore. Why not consider Ephemeral Config as part of the

[netmod] In preparation of our NETMOD meeting in Berlin

2016-07-12 Thread Benoit Claise
Dear all, $ wgstatus - sNETMOD # Document Status Since 2016-04-08 00:00:00 ## New WG-Docs draft-ietf-netmod-entity-00[u'I-D Exists', u'WG Document'] draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-01 [u'I-D Exists', u'WG Document'] ## Updated WG-Docs draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14