"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to seek some clarification.
>
> According to RFC7950 section 7.16.2:
> When a notification node is defined as a child to a data node, the
> element defined in [RFC5277] contains a hierarchy of
> nodes that identifies the node in t
Hi,
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> > Hello,
> > We would like to remove the if:interfaces-state with a deviation as it will
> > never contain any information. So we wanted to use
> > deviation /if:interfaces-state {
> > deviate not-supported
On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello,
> We would like to remove the if:interfaces-state with a deviation as it will
> never contain any information. So we wanted to use
> deviation /if:interfaces-state {
> deviate not-supported;
> }
>
> However after this we get an e
Hello,
We would like to remove the if:interfaces-state with a deviation
as it will never contain any information. So we wanted to use
deviation /if:interfaces-state {
deviate not-supported;
}
However after this we get an error as ietf-interfaces has a definition:
I've read -07, and would also support an WG adoption call for this
draft. In fact, I think that it would be quite good if we can move this
document through to WG LC fairly expediently as well.
A couple of minor review comments:
Introduction: RFC7994 reference listed twice.
Rather than bannin
