Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

2017-01-25 Thread Mahesh Jethanandani
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 6:18 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > On 1/24/2017 8:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Kent Watsen wrote: >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> I think this discussion has come to a head. Please submit an updated >>> 6087bis as soon as you can. Some comments: >

Re: [netmod] notifications...and yang-next

2017-01-25 Thread Kent Watsen
The NETCONF and NETMOD chairs are actively discussing how we might move content around between drafts maintained by the two groups. Resolving this notification statement issue is part of that. Here are some of my thoughts about this: 1) I think that YANG is primarily used to define the notif

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Andy Bierman
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi Balazs, > > I agree that such a mechanism would be pretty useful. > > I think though that the deviation-based approach can be used without > further ado. Why do you think that the "deviate" statement cannot handle > extension statements

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Balazs Lengyel
I see a problem. unknown-statement = prefix ":" identifier [sep string] optsep (";" / "{" optsep *((yang-stmt / unknown-statement) optsep) "}") stmtsep This, as I r

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:13, Balazs Lengyel > > wrote: > > > > Hello Lada, > > > > Thanks for the support, I would like to get this in as a workgroup > > document soon. > > > > Deviations are conceptually used to define ugly limitations. The > > yang-push group agree

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:13, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > Hello Lada, > > Thanks for the support, I would like to get this in as a workgroup document > soon. > > Deviations are conceptually used to define ugly limitations. The yang-push > group agreed it would be a misuse of deviations to use th

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Balazs Lengyel
Hello Lada, Thanks for the support, I would like to get this in as a workgroup document soon. Deviations are conceptually used to define ugly limitations. The yang-push group agreed it would be a misuse of deviations to use them for something constructive, like

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Vinod Kumar
Hi Balazs, Yes we do agree, that there is a need to associate additional information with the data modeled objects, based on the use cases the kind of information required and interpretation would vary. So we had defined a generic extension for annotations, as per the below draft (which wi

[netmod] [Errata Verified] RFC7950 (4916)

2017-01-25 Thread RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7950, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7950&eid=4916 -- Status: Verified T

Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

2017-01-25 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Benoit Claise wrote: > On 1/24/2017 8:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Kent Watsen wrote: > >> Hi Andy, > >> > >> I think this discussion has come to a head. Please submit an updated > >> 6087bis as soon as you can. Some comments: > >> > >> > >> 1) on the 3rd line below, should the text clari

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (4916)

2017-01-25 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 25 Jan 2017, at 15:09, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Dear all, > > This looks correct to me according to section 7.17.1 > Need one more pair of eyes to double-check before approving. Yes, it is correct, and also in agreement with the ABNF. Lada > > Regards, Benoit >> The following errata re

Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

2017-01-25 Thread Benoit Claise
On 1/24/2017 8:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Kent Watsen wrote: Hi Andy, I think this discussion has come to a head. Please submit an updated 6087bis as soon as you can. Some comments: 1) on the 3rd line below, should the text clarify that --ietf is only for IETF modules? Also, how doe

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (4916)

2017-01-25 Thread Benoit Claise
Dear all, This looks correct to me according to section 7.17.1 Need one more pair of eyes to double-check before approving. Regards, Benoit The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language". -- You may review t

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

2017-01-25 Thread Adrian Farrel
Hi Tianran, I agree, it is very confusing. It doesn't help (me) that folk are using the term "device model" when I can't find a definition of that term. Maybe this is intended to be a synonym for "Network Element YANG Modules" that is used in draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained and draft-ietf-

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
Hi Balazs, I agree that such a mechanism would be pretty useful. I think though that the deviation-based approach can be used without further ado. Why do you think that the "deviate" statement cannot handle extension statements? AFAICT, the following module satisfies all rules of RFC 7950, and it

[netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

2017-01-25 Thread Balazs Lengyel
Hello, As a result of work coming from the Yangpush effort I just posted a draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lengyel-netmod-schema-annotation-00 This proposes a way to extend YANG modules with extra properties for specific schema nodes without modifying the text of the original YANG modu