Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

Hi Martin, Several comments on the YANG model within rfc7223bis. list interface { key "name"; description "The list of interfaces on the device. The status of an interface is available in this list in the operational state... A few questions on this. (a) Th

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

I have reviewed the doc as well, and I also support publication. One thought for future work might be the interplay of this document and some LLDP model. There are YANG models for LLDP proving very interesting for network management, and any consistency rules/interactions of this with rfc7277

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

Martin Bjorklund writes: > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 18:22 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:34 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > > > >

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 15:38 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > On 2017-12-05 11:04, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point now. > > The server has to evaluate the when-stmts in operational. > > > > I think that this is probab

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On 05/12/2017 14:38, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Balazs Lengyel wrote: On 2017-12-05 11:04, Robert Wilton wrote: I see your point now. The server has to evaluate the when-stmts in operational. I think that this is probably down to implementation, but I don't thin

Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

Hi Benoit, On 12/5/17, 8:18 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" wrote: >On 11/3/2017 5:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Thanks for comments - see inline. >> >> On 10/29/17, 8:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev" >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have reviewed draft-ac

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05

Bart, I think the reason for the difference is that the interfaces model was published as an RFC before while the hardware model is new and hence it seems to look a bit odd to define new deprecated objects. If these deprecated objects are essential for BBF (please confirm), then it might be bette

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05

Hi, "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote: > Hello, > > The latest draft does not contain an appendix with the deprecated state tree Nothing has been deprecated since this will be the first published version of this module. > (to support the non-NMDA model as specified in RFC6087bis secti

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

Balazs Lengyel wrote: > On 2017-12-05 11:04, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > I see your point now. > The server has to evaluate the when-stmts in operational. > > I think that this is probably down to implementation, but I don't > think that this is necessarily requi

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On 2017-12-05 11:04, Robert Wilton wrote: I see your point now. The server has to evaluate the when-stmts in operational.

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05

Hello, The latest draft does not contain an appendix with the deprecated state tree (to support the non-NMDA model as specified in RFC6087bis section 4.23.3), so if it is published in this way, there is an issue at the level of BBF TR-383. Note that the draft-ietfnetmod-rfc7223bis does include th

Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

On 11/3/2017 5:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Vladimir, Thanks for comments - see inline. On 10/29/17, 8:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev" wrote: Hello, I have reviewed draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05. My conclusion is that the YANG modules part of the draft have been succ

[netmod] draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags

Hi, What is the plan for draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags? I think it is important and would like to see it as a WG document. /martin ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 11:25 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:03:07AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 21:00 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 07:09:51PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, accord

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:03:07AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 21:00 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 07:09:51PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > > Well, according to draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07: > > > > > >o datasto

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On 04/12/2017 17:47, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka > wrote: On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:34 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka mailto:lho...@nic.cz>> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > if we have > > > > a

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:29 +, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Lada, > > > On 04/12/2017 17:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:34 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > if we have > > > > > > > > augment "/target/node" { > > >

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 21:00 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 07:09:51PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > Well, according to draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07: > > > >o datastore schema: The combined set of schema nodes for all modules > > support