Hi,
I’m just looking at the guidance on wrapping long lines given in Section 3.1.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t cover the case where I refer to a long path. E.g:
augment /nat:nat/nat:instances/nat:instance/nat:mapping-table/nat:mapping-entry:
In this case, the total length (unindented) is 80 char
Dear all,
The proposed change has been applied to
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
For all document authors, please apply the new template.
Diff at
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines?action=diff&version=13&old_version=12
Regards, Benoit
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 10:42 +0100, Ian Farrer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m just looking at the guidance on wrapping long lines given in Section 3.1.
> Unfortunately, this doesn’t cover the case where I refer to a long path. E.g:
>
> augment /nat:nat/nat:instances/nat:instance/nat:mapping-table/n
Great. Many thanks,
Ian
> On 21. Dec 2017, at 11:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 10:42 +0100, Ian Farrer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I’m just looking at the guidance on wrapping long lines given in Section 3.1.
>> Unfortunately, this doesn’t cover the case where I refe
Hi Vladimir,
First point of clarification is that this is not about running/intended
at all. The contents of running/intended do not change in anyway
depending on whether hardware is present or absent.
The section is only concerned with how the configuration is applied in
operational, and b
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 10:42 +0100, Ian Farrer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’m just looking at the guidance on wrapping long lines given in Section
> > 3.1.
> > Unfortunately, this doesn’t cover the case where I refer to a long path.
> > E.g:
> >
> > augment /na
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:39:47AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> But this is in the YANG source; I think Ian asked about the tree
> diagram syntax. Maybe the corresponding syntax in the tree diagram
> could be simply:
>
> augment /nat:nat/nat:instances/nat:instance
> /nat:mapping-tabl
On 21/12/2017 07:36, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:53:37PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
This version addresses the WGLC comments from Andy and Lou, as
discussed on the list.
I have reviewed draft-0
On 21/12/2017 10:43, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:39:47AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
But this is in the YANG source; I think Ian asked about the tree
diagram syntax. Maybe the corresponding syntax in the tree diagram
could be simply:
augment /nat:nat/nat:insta
Thanks. This suggestion seems cleanest. Can the tree diagrams draft be updated
to describe this?
BR,
Ian
> On 21. Dec 2017, at 11:43, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:39:47AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> But this is in the YANG source; I think Ian asked a
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 10:42 +0100, Ian Farrer wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I’m just looking at the guidance on wrapping long lines given in Section
>> > 3.1.
>> > Unfortunately, this doesn’t cover the case where I refer to a long
Hi,
I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all
be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the
mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13"), I think they should
all be configurable, but
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:46PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
> 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all
> be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the
> mail thread "draf
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:46PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
> > 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all
> > be treated the same. Based on previous WG di
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:58:26PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:46PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
> > > 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-nam
On 12/21/2017 11:34 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
First point of clarification is that this is not about
running/intended at all. The contents of running/intended do not
change in anyway depending on whether hardware is present or absent.
The section is only concerned with how the
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Andy Bierman wrote:
>> 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
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:03:45PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 12/21/2017 11:34 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > First point of clarification is that this is not about running/intended
> > at all. The contents of running/intended do not change in anyway
> > depending
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
>
Ian Farrer wrote:
> Thanks. This suggestion seems cleanest. Can the tree diagrams draft
> be updated to describe this?
I suggest we add to the section "Wrapping Long Lines"
NEW:
Long paths (e.g., leafref paths or augment targets) can be split and
printed on more than one line. For example:
On 12/21/2017 1:03 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:58:26PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:46PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
'serial-num',
On 21/12/2017 13:03, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 12/21/2017 11:34 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
First point of clarification is that this is not about
running/intended at all. The contents of running/intended do not
change in anyway depending on whether hardware is present or abse
Hi Martin,
On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all
be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the
mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-enti
On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 14:25 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Martin Bjorklund writes:
> >
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been
> > >> addressed.
> > >>
> > >> T
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 14:25 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Martin Bjorklund writes:
> > >
> > > > Hi Andy,
> > > >
> > > > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
Title : Network Management Datastore Architecture
Authors : Martin Bjorklund
Juergen Schoen
On 12/21/2017 02:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:03:45PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 12/21/2017 11:34 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
First point of clarification is that this is not about running/intended
at all. The contents of running/intended
Just an FYI - I requested that the authors republish so that all could
see the current state of the document. I note that a post-LC
discussions is taking place and I leave it to the AD to decide how he'd
like to handle it, e.g., as part of WG LC or as an early IETF LC comment.
Lou
(as Shepherd)
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
Title : A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management
Authors : Andy Bierman
Martin Bjorklund
Dear all,
We all know it's important to deliver NMDA soon.
I'm sending this document to IETF LC now, till Jan 10th.
If Vladimir's concern needs to be discussed further, let's do so part
the IETF LC.
Regards, Benoit
Just an FYI - I requested that the authors republish so that all could
see the
The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'Network Management Datastore Architecture'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substant
Reviewer: Martin Bjorklund
Review result: Ready with Nits
Hi,
I have reviewed this document mainly from a NMDA perspective. As
expected, the YANG model follows all conventions and looks good in
general. Most of my comments below relate to NMDA terminology.
o Abstract and Introdcution
Both
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
Lou
(co-author)
On 12/19/2017 1:39 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Authors, Contributors, WG,
>
> As part of the preparation for WG Last Call:
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?
>
> Please state either:
>
> "No,
The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substant
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
Title : YANG Tree Diagrams
Authors : Martin Bjorklund
Lou Berger
Filename:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 07:52:54PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 12/21/2017 02:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:03:45PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > > On 12/21/2017 11:34 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Vladimir,
> > > >
> > > > First p
Hi,
It should be clear somehow that server requirements to provide config=false
data
that is valid according to the YANG definitions is not affected by NMDA.
That is not being taken away. The ability to validate operational values
of configuration data has never been provided, and therefore is no
37 matches
Mail list logo