Hi,
I think YANG 1.1 should be a normative reference instead of an
informative reference since you import definitions in section 1.1
explicitely from YANG 1.1. I do not know whether both RFC 6020 and RFC
6020bis should be normative references or RFC 6020bis is sufficient
for the purpose of this
Dear all,
Where do we capture this outcome, cut/pasted from the NETMOD chairs into
slides:
"Models need not, and SHOULD NOT, be structured to include
nodes/leaves to indicate applied configuration"
RFC6087 is about: "_Guidelines _for _Authors _and _Reviewers _of _YANG
Data Model
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:20:17AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> > We may have to be more explicit. A decent client talking to a
> > NETCONF/RESTCONF server should pick the latest version of
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> We may have to be more explicit. A decent client talking to a
> NETCONF/RESTCONF server should pick the latest version of the YANG
> modules announced in the server's YANG library. A
We may have to be more explicit. A decent client talking to a
NETCONF/RESTCONF server should pick the latest version of the YANG
modules announced in the server's YANG library. A development tool
should pick the latest version available to the tool. In case the tool
is used to develop code running
+1 for specifying to use the latest available.
Balazs
On 2016-07-16 19:17, William Lupton wrote:
All,
RFC 6020bis has no recommendation re use of import/include revision-date but
makes it clear that if it’s omitted then the revision that will be used is
undefined (I believe that pyang will
