Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Hi Andy, On 16/11/2017 10:42, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi Andy, On 16/11/2017 02:29, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, The per-datastore feature aspect of NMDA is a new and

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 12:59 +0800, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello Lada, > Yes it is necessary. Just have a look at how Java uses it. It is formulated: > XXX deprecated, use YYY instead. But the data, at the end of the day, have to correspond to what is implemented in the device. So even if an

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Hello Randy, I agree that the problem can not be eliminated, however it is still a nasty problem which we should try to avoid whenever possible. So if we can avoid it 75% of the time I am happy. (I don't often _configure_ firmware, so I am less worried about that :-)  ) regards Balazs On

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development. Cheers, Mehmet > -Original Message- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh > Jethanandani > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 16/11/2017 02:29, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > The per-datastore feature aspect of NMDA is a new and significant change > to YANG. > > | | +--ro feature* [name] > | | | +--ro name

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Randy Presuhn writes: > Hi - > > On 11/15/2017 2:02 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: >> While a server may correctly support multiple versions, the human >> operator on the CLI has a 99% chance of mixing up which version he is >> using. Humans will not check every

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Balazs Lengyel writes: > On 2017-11-15 21:20, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 12:17 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > The server MAY implement

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Hi Andy, On 16/11/2017 02:29, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, The per-datastore feature aspect of NMDA is a new and significant change to YANG.     |  |  +--ro feature* [name]     |  |  |  +--ro name yang:yang-identifier     |  |  |  +--ro not-implemented-in*     |  |  |  ->

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish. They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I therefore would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable

[netmod] Raw notes from session (incomplete, need help!)

: Recording: https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf100/ietf100-sophia-20171115-1330.mp3 https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf100/ietf100-sophia-20171115-1520.mp3 Youtube is not yet posted, but should be available sometime later today at:https://www.youtube.com/user/ietf/playlists We really need help

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Hi - On 11/15/2017 2:02 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: While a server may correctly support multiple versions, the human operator on the CLI has a 99% chance of mixing up which version he is using. Humans will not check every type and leaf  to check that they remember the little differences

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Hi, The per-datastore feature aspect of NMDA is a new and significant change to YANG. | | +--ro feature* [name] | | | +--ro nameyang:yang-identifier | | | +--ro not-implemented-in* | | | -> /yang-library/datastore/name YANG does not define feature

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On 2017-11-15 21:20, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 12:17 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Balazs Lengyel wrote:

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Hello, I have a proposal based on that provides an elegant solution to consider as a 3rd option.  It is based on keeping exactly the same model as in RFC 7895 and using RPC to retrieve datastore specific yang-library instance data in a similar way one would use to retrieve the datastore

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Hi All, I think having the tree-related guidelines in the tree draft and finalizing 6087bis as planned is useful. That said a NETMOD wiki explaining the available guidelines with pointers can be used as a starting point and would be additionally helpful. Mehmet > -Original Message- >

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:18:43PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status >

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 14:08 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status > > Standards Track. I think I heard during the meeting today that it > > ought

Re: [netmod] document organization

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 13:14 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Hi, > > > > regarding my proposed reorganization of documents: I strongly disagree with > > Martin's comment on jabber that it would be a mere split of the contents > > into > > two documents.

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 12:17 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > > The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may > > > not is not good enough as a contract for the management

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status > > Standards Track. I think I heard during the meeting today that it > >

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status > Standards Track. I think I heard during the meeting today that it > ought to be Informational. I think this makes sense. It would then > imply that

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 12:17 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may > > not is not good enough as a contract for the management client. My > > problem is that the current

[netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

Hi, Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status Standards Track. I think I heard during the meeting today that it ought to be Informational. I think this makes sense. It would then imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram document as an

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Vladimir Vassilev wrote: [...] > It is clear that datastores with non-identical models can not be > supported with yang-library:1.0. However for the many usecases that do > not require the complexity of having different datastore models > (variation of the set of

Re: [netmod] document organization

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > regarding my proposed reorganization of documents: I strongly disagree with > Martin's comment on jabber that it would be a mere split of the contents into > two documents. It is certainly not true because > > - we could get rid of the

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On 11/15/2017 11:42 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: On 15/11/2017 10:41, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/15/2017 01:06 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: On 14/11/2017 23:41, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/13/2017 04:27 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Vladimir, On 12/11/2017 10:39, Vladimir Vassilev

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Balazs Lengyel wrote: > The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may > not  is not good enough as a contract for the management client.  My > problem is that the current solution is just not good enough. IMHO we > need to change it. Note that

[netmod] Obsolete and deprecated in RFC 7950

Hello, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.21.2 o "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits new/continued implementation in order to foster interoperability with older/existing implementations. o "obsolete" means that the

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps: I think that it was along the lines of ... The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the guidelines is available on a wiki at Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest version of the

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 18:12 +0800, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may > not is not good enough as a contract for the management client. My > problem is that the current solution is just not good enough. IMHO we > need to change it. I

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On 15/11/2017 10:41, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/15/2017 01:06 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: On 14/11/2017 23:41, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/13/2017 04:27 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Vladimir, On 12/11/2017 10:39, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/11/2017 08:07 PM, Andy Bierman

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 05:27 -0500, Joe Clarke wrote: > On 11/15/17 05:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > I suppose my gut reaction to Lou's question as to whether a server > > > should support multiple versions was, "no." A client may have multiple > > > versions loaded to support servers that

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On 11/15/17 05:29, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 05:19:33AM -0500, Joe Clarke wrote: >> >> In a semver world, obsolete nodes could be reintroduced with vendor >> modules via augments or in proprietary trees. >> > > This obviously does not fix a client that got broken

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 05:19:33AM -0500, Joe Clarke wrote: > > In a semver world, obsolete nodes could be reintroduced with vendor > modules via augments or in proprietary trees. > This obviously does not fix a client that got broken (without updating the client). Is it generally true that

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On 11/15/17 05:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> I suppose my gut reaction to Lou's question as to whether a server >> should support multiple versions was, "no." A client may have multiple >> versions loaded to support servers that support different versions. I >> may be convinced otherwise, but I

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Hello, I would like to extend my list of base problems to 3: Non-backward compatible (NBC) changes should be allowed in some limited cases It should be possible to determine two module versions' compatibility without a line-by-line comparison

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On 11/15/17 03:53, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Joe Clarke wrote: >> On 11/15/17 00:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> Another thing to consider is that foo and foo2 allows an >>> implementation to support both during transition, with foo {semver >>> 1.x.y} and foo {semver

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

The server MAY implement obsoleted nodes or MAY NOT. This may or may not  is not good enough as a contract for the management client.  My problem is that the current solution is just not good enough. IMHO we need to change it. Even after semver you can still obsolete the old stuff and provide

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Joe Clarke writes: > On 11/15/17 00:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> Another thing to consider is that foo and foo2 allows an >> implementation to support both during transition, with foo {semver >> 1.x.y} and foo {semver 2.x.y} this may be harder. > > I'm not convinced

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

While a server may correctly support multiple versions, the human operator on the CLI has a 99% chance of mixing up which version he is using. Humans will not check every type and leaf  to check that they remember the little differences between model versions. It is a recipe for human

Re: [netmod] document organization

Hi Lada, If the consensus is not split the document, I think it would be useful to formally define the “inline” and “uses” options with examples very early. As it is, there is a brief definition of “inline” but nothing for “uses” and one must deduct this implicitly. Thanks, Acee On 11/15/17,

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On 11/15/2017 01:06 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: On 14/11/2017 23:41, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/13/2017 04:27 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Vladimir, On 12/11/2017 10:39, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: On 11/11/2017 08:07 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Robert

[netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Hi, There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the tree diagram document. Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines, or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

Joe Clarke wrote: > On 11/15/17 00:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Another thing to consider is that foo and foo2 allows an > > implementation to support both during transition, with foo {semver > > 1.x.y} and foo {semver 2.x.y} this may be harder. > > I'm not convinced

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On 11/15/17 00:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Another thing to consider is that foo and foo2 allows an > implementation to support both during transition, with foo {semver > 1.x.y} and foo {semver 2.x.y} this may be harder. I'm not convinced this a bad thing. If a server supports multiple