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
> 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
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
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:
>> >
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo