Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

Hi Martin, > -Original Message- > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:07 PM > To: lho...@nic.cz > Cc: lber...@labn.net; xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com; draft-ietf-netmod-schema- > mo...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Schema-mount

[netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

Hi, I don't know if getting rid of /foo-state is such a great idea, especially wrt/ counters and other objects that are not related to intended config vs. applied config. Q1) how does a client know the difference between an auto-generated foo-state.yang and a real foo-state.yang? Seem like a YAN

Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 14 Jun 2017, at 13:43, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > (speaking as contributor...) > > > > > > On 6/14/2017 7:17 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Hi Xufeng, > >> > >> please see my answers inline. > >> > >> Xufeng Liu writes: > >> > >>> Hi Lada, > >>

Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01

On 14/06/2017 16:23, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Xufeng, On 14/06/2017 14:01, Xufeng Liu wrote: Hi Juergen, Thanks for the confirmation. As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I think that it has been dete

Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Xufeng, > > > On 14/06/2017 14:01, Xufeng Liu wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> Thanks for the confirmation. >> As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I >> think that it has been determined to be useful in so

Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01

Hi Xufeng, On 14/06/2017 14:01, Xufeng Liu wrote: Hi Juergen, Thanks for the confirmation. As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I think that it has been determined to be useful in some use cases. We can create a separate leaf in such a case. Yes, I think tha

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

Hello, On 06/14/2017 01:18 PM, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: That's why these counters are optional in the model: if there is nothing to return we should indeed not return 0... -Original Message- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de] Sent:

Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

Hi Lada, On 6/14/2017 9:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> On 14 Jun 2017, at 13:43, Lou Berger wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> (speaking as contributor...) >> >> >> On 6/14/2017 7:17 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> Hi Xufeng, >>> >>> please see my answers inline. >>> >>> Xufeng Liu writes: >>> Hi Lad

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

I apologize for the email below - replied to the wrong one, please, disregard. Igor From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Igor Bryskin Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 9:13 AM To: lho...@nic.cz; alex.campb...@aviatnet.com Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Question on in

Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

> On 14 Jun 2017, at 13:43, Lou Berger wrote: > > Hi, > > (speaking as contributor...) > > > On 6/14/2017 7:17 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi Xufeng, >> >> please see my answers inline. >> >> Xufeng Liu writes: >> >>> Hi Lada, >>> >>> >>> >>> We have got two questions on how to speci

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

Hi Franchesco, To your point 1: I was describing a very common use case when a client owns/ controls OTN TTPs, while the multi domain network provides connectivity betweeb access links across the network. In this cae network only deals with transit segments (neither head nor tail) To your point

Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01

Hi Juergen, Thanks for the confirmation. As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I think that it has been determined to be useful in some use cases. We can create a separate leaf in such a case. Regards, - Xufeng > -Original Message- > From: Juergen Schoen

Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

Hi, (speaking as contributor...) On 6/14/2017 7:17 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi Xufeng, > > please see my answers inline. > > Xufeng Liu writes: > >> Hi Lada, >> >> >> >> We have got two questions on how to specify the module entries in a schema: >> >> >> >> 1. Are augmentations of par

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

That's why these counters are optional in the model: if there is nothing to return we should indeed not return 0... -Original Message- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de] Sent: 14 June 2017 11:40 To: Robert Wilton Cc: Vladimir Vassilev ; Andy Bierman

Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

Hi Xufeng, please see my answers inline. Xufeng Liu writes: > Hi Lada, > > > > We have got two questions on how to specify the module entries in a schema: > > > > 1.Are augmentations of parent modules inherited when augmented module > is listed in schema-mounts schema? > > For example,

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

On 14/06/2017 10:46, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 14 Jun 2017, at 11:21, Robert Wilton wrote: On 14/06/2017 09:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 14 Jun 2017, at 00:35, Alex Campbell wrote: Presumably a device is free to not implement an optional config=false node if that node would never be r

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

> On 14 Jun 2017, at 11:21, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > On 14/06/2017 09:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 14 Jun 2017, at 00:35, Alex Campbell wrote: >>> >>> >>> Presumably a device is free to not implement an optional config=false node >>> if that node would never be returned in a respo

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:15:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Returning zero values here is not useful, in fact it is misleading. I think > that if a server doesn't have a value to return for a particular node it is > much better to return nothing than to return a false value. +1. It took u

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

On 14/06/2017 09:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 14 Jun 2017, at 00:35, Alex Campbell wrote: Presumably a device is free to not implement an optional config=false node if that node would never be returned in a response anyway - as this will make no externally visible difference. That's my v

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

On 13/06/2017 10:15, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 06/12/2017 08:31 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 10:55:20AM +, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wro

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

> On 14 Jun 2017, at 00:35, Alex Campbell wrote: > > > Presumably a device is free to not implement an optional config=false node if > that node would never be returned in a response anyway - as this will make no > externally visible difference. That's my view, too. However, this reasoning w