Re: [netmod] features in import

Hi, I do not agree these changes should be made at this late date. It seems to me that in order to support a feature you have to implement it, and therefore if any features are set then the module is implemented, not imported. All features should be set to false in an import-only module. IMO

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:04 AM Robert Wilton wrote: > > On 30/01/2019 17:31, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Robert Wilton wrote: > >> >> On 30/01/2019 15:16, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: >> >>> Hi Andy, >>>

Re: [netmod] features in import

Hi, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > unlike RFC 7895, 7895bis doesn't provide the "feature" leaf list for > import-only modules. But is it really so that features have no use in > such modules? > > For example, an enum can depend on a feature, and if it is inside a > typedef, it can also be in

Re: [netmod] LL comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-00

Hi Lada, Thanks for the review and comments ... I've added some thoughts inline ... On 30/01/2019 14:50, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi, I think it is a good start, here are my comments (some of them were already raised by Jason): - I like the fact that this work doesn't require any changes to

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On 30/01/2019 17:31, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Robert Wilton > wrote: On 30/01/2019 15:16, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Andy, Thanks

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Robert Wilton wrote: > > On 30/01/2019 15:16, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> Thanks for the comments. >> On 30/01/2019 01:22, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I originally brought up this

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On 30/01/2019 15:16, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi Andy, Thanks for the comments. On 30/01/2019 01:22, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I originally brought up this issue in July 2015

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 7:16 AM Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> Thanks for the comments. >> On 30/01/2019 01:22, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I originally brought up this issue in July 2015 >>

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

Hi Jason, Please see inline [RW] ... On 30/01/2019 00:55, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: Thanks Rob. Please see inline. Jason *From:*Robert Wilton *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:16 PM *To:* Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ; netmod@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: initial

[netmod] features in import

Hi, unlike RFC 7895, 7895bis doesn't provide the "feature" leaf list for import-only modules. But is it really so that features have no use in such modules? For example, an enum can depend on a feature, and if it is inside a typedef, it can also be in an import-only module. What if that feature

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for the comments. > On 30/01/2019 01:22, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > I originally brought up this issue in July 2015 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bierman-netmod-yang-package/ > > Yes. > > The solution I

[netmod] LL comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-00

Hi, I think it is a good start, here are my comments (some of them were already raised by Jason): - I like the fact that this work doesn't require any changes to YANG, except perhaps semver. - I think the augments to YANG library is a separate problem that should perhaps be addressed in a

Re: [netmod] initial comments on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages

Hi Andy, Thanks for the comments. On 30/01/2019 01:22, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I originally brought up this issue in July 2015 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bierman-netmod-yang-package/ Yes. The solution I propose is different in the sense that it uses YANG instance data to

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

Amar Jadagoud wrote: > So do you mean that origin-filter needs to be applied on the response data > but origin annotation should not be provided in the rpc-reply? Yes. The filters is a set of mechanisms to reduce the result to match certain criteria. "with-origin" (and "with-defaults") are

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5617)

Hi, this erratum should be rejected. It is a substantial technical change of the spec, and section 9.9.2 doesn't indicate any possibility of using deref(). Lada On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 02:35 -0800, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7950, > "The YANG

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

So do you mean that origin-filter needs to be applied on the response data but origin annotation should not be provided in the rpc-reply? On Wed 30 Jan, 2019, 4:05 PM Martin Bjorklund Amar Jadagoud wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > Yes. I got your point. Thanks. > > > > One more question : > > > >

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

Amar Jadagoud wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Yes. I got your point. Thanks. > > One more question : > > Libyang does not return error if origin-filter is provided in the rpc > request without "with-origin" parameter as ietf-netconf-nmda module does > not mandate it. Yes, this is intentional.

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

Hi Martin, Yes. I got your point. Thanks. One more question : Libyang does not return error if origin-filter is provided in the rpc request without "with-origin" parameter as ietf-netconf-nmda module does not mandate it. So we consider it as with-origin scenario and provide origin annotation in

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 03:16:33PM +0530, Amar Jadagoud wrote: > > Yes. I got your point. But what should be the parent record annotation > value? Whether it should be intended or origin annotation itself should not > exist? > The origin annotation on a non-presence container has no meaning

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

Hi, Amar Jadagoud wrote: > Hi martin, > > Yes. I got your point. But what should be the parent record annotation > value? Whether it should be intended or origin annotation itself should not > exist? I'm not sure I understand your question, but if the "with-origin" parameter is present in the

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

Hi martin, Yes. I got your point. But what should be the parent record annotation value? Whether it should be intended or origin annotation itself should not exist? Thanks, Amar On Wed 30 Jan, 2019, 2:25 PM Martin Bjorklund Hi, > > Amar Jadagoud wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have one doubt

Re: [netmod] Regarding origin-filter in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08

Hi, Amar Jadagoud wrote: > Hi, > > I have one doubt regarding origin-filter filtering in case of parent-child > hierarchy. > > If child class instance fields match with origin-filter value but parent > class instance fields does not, then what should be the rpc-reply content? > Does it need to