Hi,
These changes are OK with me.
Andy
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up):
>
> I have created two wikis off of
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, one for 6087bis
> content and the other for
Hi,
I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been
addressed.
This might be the most important sentence in the draft:
sec. 5.3
The datastore schema for MUST be a superset of the
combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
that YANG nod
Hi,
A library per datastore sounds too complicated.
I prefer the proposal that was made at the IETF meeting that had
a 'not-implemented-in' leaf-list and a single module list.
Why is it interesting to have a separate module list for regular modules
and imported modules?
I prefer to keep the confo
CC-ing NETCONF, where the draft is being worked on.
Kent
On 12/08/2017 03:08 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:08:32AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> In talking to some othe
CC-ing NETCONF, where the draft is being worked on.
Kent
On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 16:34 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:19:28PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> >
> > Yes. The default value for yang-library-datastore leaf is ds:operational
> > (the only possible o
On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 16:34 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:19:28PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> >
> > Yes. The default value for yang-library-datastore leaf is ds:operational
> > (the only possible one for the ds:operational datastore). This is backward
> > c
Dear all,
I believe BCP is correct for the tree diagram document.
Exactly as this is the right status for RFC6087bis, as discussed on the
list.
Regards, Benoit.
I think the rules and recommendations in this document should be used, once
agreed and published, by all YANG module drafts within a
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:19:28PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>
> Yes. The default value for yang-library-datastore leaf is ds:operational
> (the only possible one for the ds:operational datastore). This is backward
> compatible. If one needs different model for 'running', etc. then a new
> d
Hi,
the following text in sec. 3.2 of schema-mount-08 is wrong for traditional
datastores, and even more so for NDMA:
In case 1 ["inline"], the mounted schema is determined at run time: every
instance of the mount point that exists in the parent tree MUST
contain a copy of YANG library d
On 12/08/2017 04:06 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:03:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 11/15/2017 06:29 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
I don't think that this is really a good idea. You would end up
returning server metadata in additio
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:03:06PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > On 11/15/2017 06:29 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think that this is really a good idea. You would end up
> > > returning server metadata in addition to the configuration.
> > Obviously
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 06:29 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> > I don't think that this is really a good idea. You would end up
> > returning server metadata in addition to the configuration.
> Obviously RFC 7895 defines only config false; data and I was not
> proposing a change to
On 12/08/2017 03:08 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:08:32AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
In talking to some others on this topic, they suggested using a library per
datastore. I haven't lo
On 11/15/2017 06:29 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
I don't think that this is really a good idea. You would end up
returning server metadata in addition to the configuration.
Obviously RFC 7895 defines only config false; data and I was not
proposing a change to that. But I agree something has to be
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:08:32AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > >
> > >> In talking to some others on this topic, they suggested using a library
> > >> per
> > >> datastore. I haven't look into this enough t
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:08:32AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >
> >> In talking to some others on this topic, they suggested using a library per
> >> datastore. I haven't look into this enough to know if that is a good or bad
> >> idea, but i
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Hi,
>
> There has been quite a lot of discussion about the YANG library
> data model on the list. The authors of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis
> have tried to understand all arguments in the discussion, and provide
> a solution. Below are 3 solution proposals (we have
On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> In talking to some others on this topic, they suggested using a library per
>> datastore. I haven't look into this enough to know if that is a good or bad
>> idea, but it seems functionally equivalent to your first option but realized
>> i
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 06:10:49AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for raising this, there's definitely some open issues as well as
> confusion on this topic. In the different options listed below you say that
> each datastore refers to a schema, correct? What is the mechanism you wo
Martin,
Thanks for raising this, there's definitely some open issues as well as
confusion on this topic. In the different options listed below you say that
each datastore refers to a schema, correct? What is the mechanism you would
use to do this?
In talking to some others on this topic, the
I think the rules and recommendations in this document should be used, once
agreed and published, by all YANG module drafts within and outside of IETF.
As such its content is BCP.
IETF consensus will be achieved during IETF LC.
Cheers,
Mehmet
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:ne
Kent,
Yes it would be good set a target date so it communicates to the industry the
intent, allowing them to plan their migration.
It also allows the industry to provide feedback regarding the migration period.
I wanted to reiterate Barts request for the hardware module to have state
module in
Hi,
There has been quite a lot of discussion about the YANG library
data model on the list. The authors of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis
have tried to understand all arguments in the discussion, and provide
a solution. Below are 3 solution proposals (we have discussed more,
but they are basicall
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:38:14PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> > This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.
> >
>
> Have the suggestions for including a collapsed view of uses been
> included?
No, not yet.
> Related to the status, I do
24 matches
Mail list logo
