Benoit,
Okay - we'll add the intended status to the milestones.
Lou
On 3/20/2017 7:09 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Lou,
>
> In all my WGs, we consistently documented the intended status in the
> milestones, expressing the _intended _status at the time of the
> charter discussion
>
> Regards, Beno
Hi,
Not sure I like the YANG module with all the datastore identities
because it makes datastore discovery more complicated.
I prefer the server advertise capabilities in the message.
More importantly, all the existing NETCONF operations use
a container with a choice in it to select the source a
Kent and Lada:
I agree that we need some parameters in yang. I agree with version 1 of the
revised datastores.
In my proposal regarding I2RS Yang, I tried to start suggesting some
parameters for control plane datastores, and ephemeral control plane
datastores. In this I also suggest a "v
> I believe this is the wrong direction, even if we rewrite the module
> in the revised datastores document and split it into multiple modules.
> A simple list of implemented datastores is cheap. It is flexible. It
> does not require explanations and rules how definitions must be split
> into modu
On 20/03/2017 14:28, Kent Watsen wrote:
But this logic is already broken for the datastores defined in the
revised datastores document. It defines an identity for startup but
not all systems implement startup. End of proof.
Ha ha, yes professor. But recall this started as a discussion regardi
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:28:53PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> > But this logic is already broken for the datastores defined in the
> > revised datastores document. It defines an identity for startup but
> > not all systems implement startup. End of proof.
>
> Ha ha, yes professor. But recall
> But this logic is already broken for the datastores defined in the
> revised datastores document. It defines an identity for startup but
> not all systems implement startup. End of proof.
Ha ha, yes professor. But recall this started as a discussion regarding
what to do for the new dynamic dat
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:05:09PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Why are you mentioning identities here? Yes, the module defines
> identities, but that is beside the point to what I'm saying. I'm
> only discussing the module (e.g. ietf-i2rs-solution) showing up
> in YANG Library and using the a
>> It seems okay for more than one datastore to be represented by a single
>> module. Presumably the set of them come together as a package (all or
>> none), right? This could be a datastore-designer decision to make.
>>
>> For instance, I2RS talks about priority-ordered planes of glass, so ma
Hi Acee,
On 17/03/2017 17:18, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Rob,
On 3/10/17, 9:46 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton -
ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote:
Lada,
Thanks for the comments, some further comments inline ...
On 10/03/2017 14:09, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Rob,
plea
"t.petch" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ladislav Lhotka"
> To: "Robert Wilton"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:32 PM
>>
>> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> >
>> > Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an
> Informational RFC that
Kent Watsen writes:
> Hi Lada,
>
> I think some of what you're getting at is in these guidelines:
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01#section-5
>
> But you're thinking about something more generalized?
Most likely yes - what I have in mind is something li
Robert Wilton writes:
> On 17/03/2017 15:08, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:11, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/03/2017 12:55, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Rob,
thank you for reading the draft.
> On 17 Mar 2017, at 13:30, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>
Dear all,
The NETMOD chairs, the NETCONF chairs, and I had a call regarding
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores & charters.
First of, we must stress that this piece of work is an essential
building block in the world of data model-driven management.
We also believe we have the right set of
Lou,
In all my WGs, we consistently documented the intended status in the
milestones, expressing the _intended _status at the time of the charter
discussion
Regards, Benoit
Juergen,
Thank you for the input. I think your point highlights how the
technical contents of a document drives the
On 3/1/2017 9:40 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
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
"Peter Kajsa -X (pkajsa - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> RFC7950 section 7.9.2. says that if a “case” statement is omitted
> (i.e. “case” shorthand) and implicit “case” node is created, schema
> node identifiers MUST always explicitly include the implicit “case”
> node identif
Hi,
RFC7950 section 7.9.2. says that if a “case” statement is omitted (i.e. “case”
shorthand) and implicit “case” node is created, schema node identifiers MUST
always explicitly include the implicit “case” node identifiers. So the
following snippet from yang model (below) is valid for Yang 1.1.
18 matches
Mail list logo
