On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:43:32AM +1200, hayden wrote:
>
> I understand that the schema mount proposal is still effectively in a
> state of flux, but are there any publicly visible implementations or
> deployments of a NETCONF or RESTCONF server that those interested could
> experiment with
Hello
As part of a recent IESG review (of draft-bfd-yang) a point came up on
the use of "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix.
This is typically used in the case where the module refers to an IANA
maintained registry. However, the point raised was that the name of the
registry operator
I just had a chance to finish reading this. The in-person meeting group
seems to strongly support this work, and I agree.
Coming from a serviceability standpoint, I find this might serve as a
precursor to a VCS-like "blame log". Would it be reasonable to include
identifiers as to who (or what) m
Hi all,
One thing that we should probably clarify in the diff draft is that a
comparison to the operational datastore is not expected to be an atomic
snapshot.. As the diff function walks through the nodes, some of the
operational nodes may change value while the diff is underway.
I believe
Hi Martin,
I would prefer not using "reg" since it will always be an abbreviation for a
machine language register to me. I'd favor using "registry" in the module name
and the more cryptic "reg" in the module prefix.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/20/18, 9:46 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
w
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 03:45:47PM +0200, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> As part of a recent IESG review (of draft-bfd-yang) a point came up on the
> use of "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix.
> This is typically used in the case where the module refers to an IANA
> maintained registry. How
Add two additional thoughts,
(1) I hope NMDA datastore can be used to compare one datastore at two different
timepoints, so I am not sure source and target defined in the model are enough
to support this case.
(2) NMDA Base events defined in
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-netconf-base-not
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 03:45:47PM +0200, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
>>
>> As part of a recent IESG review (of draft-bfd-yang) a point came up on the
>> use of "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix.
Hi,
I strongly object to requirement 3.1:
3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to
support existing clients in a backward compatible way.
This is not what servers do today at all.
They provide only one version of an implemented module, as specified in RFC
My understanding is that the MUST puts a requirement on the solution
and the rest is an "allow servers", i.e., something that servers may
want to do. (I was against using RFC 2119 keywords in the first place
for this document.)
/js
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> H
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I strongly object to requirement 3.1:
>
>
> 3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to
> support existing clients in a backward compatible way.
>
>
>
> This is not what servers do today
11 matches
Mail list logo
