Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first place? How about "units percent;"? From: netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m. To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel Cc: NETMOD WG Subject

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > We also need a method for removing stuff. It does happen that some > functionality is deemed not important enough, outdated, too expensive to > maintain, so we want to remove it. > >- Augment is clearly not the tool for that.

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

The servers implement the modules which can have predefined tags from the module designer as well as the implementer (vendor) which literally cannot come from anywhere *but* the server that implements the module. This is not what I thought would hold this work up. Thanks, Chris. > On Nov 13, 2

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 05:54:27PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > I think that my main point regarding version numbers is: > >  - If we are going to use semver then we should define and follow the rules > strictly.  I.e. assuming that the semver has been populated correctly then > it should b

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 13/11/2018 17:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 03:54:11PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: Today, just using the status element alone to mark removed nodes means that a client would have to check for all changes in the module between two revisions to determine whether or

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 03:54:11PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > Today, just using the status element alone to mark removed nodes means that > a client would have to check for all changes in the module between two > revisions to determine whether or not the new module revision is backwards > compa

Re: [netmod] [802.1 - 12909] IETF Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models - draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-04

Hi John, Lou, Thank you both for your comments and helping to get the necessary visibility and review from 802.1 WG. On 13/11/2018 07:03, Lou Berger wrote: Hi John,     Thank you (and Janos, the group) for the agenda time and the message.  There was also a request for a single c-type vlan e

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > On 13/11/2018 15:32, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> >> On 13/11/2018 15:17, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel < >> balazs.leng...@ericss

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be defined > using range, by specifying the numbers 0 | 1

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 13/11/2018 15:32, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: On 13/11/2018 15:17, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel mailto:balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hello,

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > On 13/11/2018 15:17, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel < > balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We also need a method for removing stuff. It does happen that some >> functionality

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On 13/11/2018 15:17, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel mailto:balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hello, We also need a method for removing stuff. It does happen that some functionality is deemed not important enough, outdated, too expensi

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Balázs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > We also need a method for removing stuff. It does happen that some > functionality is deemed not important enough, outdated, too expensive to > maintain, so we want to remove it. > >- Augment is clearly not the tool for that.

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be defined > using range, by specifying the numbers 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100 in the range's > argument. > > typedef percent-short { > type percent {

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

Hi Balazs, On 13/11/2018 13:46, Balázs Lengyel wrote: Hello, We also need a method for removing stuff. It does happen that some functionality is deemed not important enough, outdated, too expensive to maintain, so we want to remove it. * Augment is clearly not the tool for that. * Devi

Re: [netmod] Deviations and augmentations

Hello, We also need a method for removing stuff. It does happen that some functionality is deemed not important enough, outdated, too expensive to maintain, so we want to remove it. Augment is clearly not the tool for that. Deviations are not intend

Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

Hello, In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be defined using range, by specifying the numbers 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100 in the range's argument. typedef percent-short { type percent { range 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100; } // didn't type out all the 101 integer va

Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

Hi Joel, authors, I have to confess that I didn't have time to review this during the last call (but have reviewed/provided comments on previous versions). These comments may be too late, but I will provide them anyway, so make of them what you will :-) In summary, I like the idea of tags a