Re: [netmod] Query about invalid XPATH paths in YANG

2017-01-23 Thread William Ivory
Hi Martin, Thanks for the confirmation. Regards, William -Original Message- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] Sent: 23 January 2017 18:17 To: William Ivory Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about invalid XPATH paths in YANG William Ivory wrote: > Hi, > >

Re: [netmod] Query about invalid XPATH paths in YANG

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
William Ivory wrote: > Hi, > > I'd appreciate clarification on whether a YANG path in an XPATH > statement in a must or when statement must point to a valid YANG path > or not. You might wonder why we'd have an invalid path (as opposed to > one that's simply not configured right now) but it is o

Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/18/2017 7:00 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Benoit Claise > wrote: Martin, Hi, It turns out that the recommendations on example modules are a bit unclear. Different drafts do very different things. Some examples:

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Lou Berger
I think we need something. BTW I'm fine with obsoletes ;-) On 1/23/2017 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Lou, > > RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020. > > In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but > that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time

[netmod] Query about invalid XPATH paths in YANG

2017-01-23 Thread William Ivory
Hi, I'd appreciate clarification on whether a YANG path in an XPATH statement in a must or when statement must point to a valid YANG path or not. You might wonder why we'd have an invalid path (as opposed to one that's simply not configured right now) but it is occasionally helpful when sharin

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 5:26 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton wrote: I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly: Old: The interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid usin

[netmod] [Errata Verified] RFC6020 (4911)

2017-01-23 Thread RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been verified for RFC6020, "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6020&eid=4911 ---

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Lou, RFC 7950 does not update anything in RFC 6020. In hindsight, the proper tag would have been 'Obsoletes: RFC 6020' but that was considered too 'aggressive' at that time and now it is too late to put it in. I suggest to leave it alone. People who simply google 'yang rfc' will hopefully find t

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:51, Robert Wilton wrote: > > I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly: > > Old: > > The interpretation of any other character then the ones listed above > following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using > such backslash sequences i

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Lou Berger
How do you feel about an errata on 1.0 that it should be considered to be updated by 1.1? Lou On 1/23/2017 6:08 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > On 1/23/2017 11:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> Benoit, >> >> RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for >> YANG 1 is simply t

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Robert Wilton
I would suggest tweaking the order of the words slightly: Old: The interpretation of any *other character then* the ones listed above following a backslash is undefined. Authors are advised to avoid using such backslash sequences in double-quoted strings in their YANG modules. New: The interpr

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 4:33 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: Benoit, RFC 6020 is ambig

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Benoit Claise wrote: > On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >>> > Benoit, > > RFC 6020 is ambig

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 3:00 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: Benoit, RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for YANG 1 is simply to

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >> >>> Benoit, >>> >>> RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for >>> YANG 1 is simply to give advice to mo

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:37:30PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > Benoit, > > > > RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for > > YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous > > character sequences (and avoiding

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > Benoit, > > RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for > YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous > character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). > > YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YANG 1 but b

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/23/2017 11:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: Benoit, RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YA

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Hi, I agree with what Juergen writes below. Also, if we *really* wanted to change RFC 6020 in this regard (which I don't think we should!), I think the change should be the equivalent of Y06-01: Clarify that "\x" means the two characters '\' and 'x', i.e., "\x" is equivalent to '\x'. This

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder when we use 'state' and when 'status' - is there a subtle > distinction or should be just consistently use lets say 'state', i.e., > changed to alalarm-status to alarm-state and standby-status to > standby-state? The reason in this case is that we

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Benoit, RFC 6020 is ambiguous and this is just how it is. The solution for YANG 1 is simply to give advice to module writers to avoid ambiguous character sequences (and avoiding ambiguity can be easily done). YANG 1.1 fixes the ambiguity in YANG 1 but backporting this fix to YANG 1 is a change of

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6020 (4911) - what next?

2017-01-23 Thread Benoit Claise
Dear all, Let me summarize the situation. - The RFC 6020 spec is clearly ambiguous. - The solution is to use YANG 1.1 - RFC 7950 doesn't update or obsolete RFC 6020 (*) - We should stop this problem from spreading further: updating tooling is one good aspect, we should update the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

2017-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Hi, I wonder when we use 'state' and when 'status' - is there a subtle distinction or should be just consistently use lets say 'state', i.e., changed to alalarm-status to alarm-state and standby-status to standby-state? I also wonder about the mapping of the MIB object names to YANG leaf names:

Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

2017-01-23 Thread Tianran Zhou
To add more comments: On the L2SM meeting, several people (4 or more) believed the 3 service delivery model examples ([I-D.dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang], [I-D.ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang] and [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-yang]) are actually device models. I think both of the two I-Ds ([draft-ietf-netmod-yang-mo

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

2017-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Hi, The main changes in this version of the hardware model is that pre-provisioning is supported according to the ML discussion. Also, the leaf-list "contained-in" is changed to a leaf "parent", in order to match "parent-rel-pos". With this version, the authors believe that all known issues are

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

2017-01-23 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. Title : A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management Authors : Andy Bierman Martin