Christian Hopps wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
> >> > Also I am not sure it is a good idea to add configuration meta-data
> >> > that really should be common across all modules into the modules
> >> > themselves. Another approach is to keep a separate list with the
> >> > tags, indexed by mod
Martin Bjorklund writes:
>> > Also I am not sure it is a good idea to add configuration meta-data
>> > that really should be common across all modules into the modules
>> > themselves. Another approach is to keep a separate list with the
>> > tags, indexed by modulename and revision.
>>
>> I don'
Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The tags in the library and the tags in a module are updated at the same
> >> > time and represent logically the same list of
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:04:11PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> I defer to Chris on us of RPCs in general, but an interesting use case
> that is supported with RPCs is tag modification in RO modules.
>
No, you are simply hiding configuration data behind RPCs. Somewhere
the tags need to be stored.
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> >
>> > The tags in the library and the tags in a module are updated at the same
>> > time and represent logically the same list of tags. Its clear this
>> > happens with
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/2017 3:34 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >>> Lou Berger writes:
> >>>
> On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
> ...
> >>
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > Lou Berger writes:
> >
> > > On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > > wrote:
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags
>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Lou Berger writes:
>
> > On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags
> >> require new editing primitives.
> >
> > It w
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>
>> We also went with the split route with our tags draft.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/
> Also note that draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-0
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> >
>> > We also went with the split route with our tags draft.
>> >
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/
>> >
>> > Features like dev
Lou Berger writes:
> On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags
>> require new editing primitives.
>
> It was an intentional design choice/preference by one of the authors.
> Basically, Chris th
Team,
Inline below.
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> Hi Dean,
>
> I've been processing your response and the continuing thread with you and
> Tianran.
>
>>> We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is
>>> consistent with the latest versi
Hi Dean,
I've been processing your response and the continuing thread with you and
Tianran.
> > 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
> >
On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
...
We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags
require new editing primitives.
It was an intentional design choice/preference by one of the authors.
Basically, Chris thought it was easier from a client
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:11:01PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> > >
> > > We also went with the split route with our tags draft.
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-ne
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > We also went with the split route with our tags draft.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/
> >
> > Features like deviations were not liked internally
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> We also went with the split route with our tags draft.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/
>
> Features like deviations were not liked internally by the group. 2
> modules seemed like the KI
We also went with the split route with our tags draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/
Features like deviations were not liked internally by the group. 2
modules seemed like the KISS approach.
Thanks,
Chris.
Balazs Lengyel writes:
> My earlier problem was
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
> Hi Dean,
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:ivand...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:53 PM
>> To: Tianran Zhou
>> Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; netmod@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-netmod
19 matches
Mail list logo
