Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

2017-01-30 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Andy Bierman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > Hi Andy, Lada, > > > > On 28/01/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > >> > >> > On 27

Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

2017-01-30 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 30 Jan 2017, at 19:09, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > On 30/01/2017 17:52, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: >> Hi Andy, Lada, >> >> On 28/01/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan

Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

2017-01-30 Thread Robert Wilton
On 30/01/2017 17:52, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi Andy, Lada, On 28/01/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Ladislav Lhotka

Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

2017-01-30 Thread Andy Bierman
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Andy, Lada, > > On 28/01/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> >> > On 27 Jan 2017, at 20:23, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >

Re: [netmod] Are multiple revisions with the same date allowed?

2017-01-30 Thread William Lupton
RFC 7950 Section 7.1.9 says that “For every published editorial change, a new one SHOULD be added in front of the revisions sequence so that all revisions are in reverse chronological order.” So I think it probably SHOULD be an error if the revision dates aren’t monotonically decreasing (from

Re: [netmod] Are multiple revisions with the same date allowed?

2017-01-30 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
Rob, since we are talking about _published_ modules, this is going to be rare. Perhaps we could have allowed an optional time specification here to handle this case (since multiple revisions with the same date cause ambiguity) but then in most organizations this is unlikely to happen (at least

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

2017-01-30 Thread Dean Bogdanovic
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: > > 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

[netmod] Are multiple revisions with the same date allowed?

2017-01-30 Thread Robert Wilton
RFC 7950 doesn't state that the date associated with revision statements in a YANG module must be unique. Hence, I presume that it is intentionally allowed to have multiple revision statements with the same date. E.g. the following module is allowed (and passes pyang --lint): module

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

2017-01-30 Thread Dean Bogdanovic
> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is > consistent with the latest version of > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a > question has

[netmod] RFC 6087bis (draft 09) description-stmt

2017-01-30 Thread William Lupton
Andy, all, RFC 6087bis nearly always says “description statement” but on one occasion it says "description-stmt” (when discussing its use within “feature-stmt”). It also usually doesn’t quote “description”, but on a few (clustered?) occasions it does quote it. The above remarks may apply more