On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:56:12PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
> I understand your intention here, but I'm inclined to agree with others
> that it's better to stick with the term we're using in the documents.
> I'm open to the idea of changing the term used in our RFCs, and I believe
>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:45:13AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> But, if my memory serves me well, you have always insisted on being able to
> do the roundtrip conversion between XML and JSON (without using the data
> model, or in anydata).
>
I still think this was/is desirable but it does
Hi Lada,
I understand your intention here, but I'm inclined to agree with others
that it's better to stick with the term we're using in the documents.
I'm open to the idea of changing the term used in our RFCs, and I believe
that such a change would likely have to begin with the YANG spec, from
wh
The explanation of the YANG tree diagram is not that in RFC6087; I think
that it should be (or else explain why not)
I am confused by the variation in the references to RFC in the modules.
I see
RFC 5424
[RFC5426]
RFC5424
I think the first correct
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "
> On 1 Mar 2017, at 11:53, t.petch wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:46 AM
>
>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to
> rep
Hi Lada,
On 01/03/2017 10:45, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 1 Mar 2017, at 10:46, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to replace
'encoding' with 'representation', which also includ
- Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:46 AM
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > > So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to
replace
> > > 'encoding' with 'representation', which also in
> On 1 Mar 2017, at 10:46, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to replace
>>> 'encoding' with 'representation', which also includes changing
>>> document titles? I am
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to replace
> > 'encoding' with 'representation', which also includes changing
> > document titles? I am not necessarily against that change but I think
> > it is good to
> On 1 Mar 2017, at 09:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:41:35PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>> Hi NETMOD WG,
>>
>> Please find below draft-2 having the following changes:
>> - clarified responsibility 'c'
>> - s/encoding/representation/g
>> - moved intf-ext-y
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:41:35PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Hi NETMOD WG,
>
> Please find below draft-2 having the following changes:
> - clarified responsibility 'c'
> - s/encoding/representation/g
> - moved intf-ext-yang from Oct to Dec
>
So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF docu
11 matches
Mail list logo
