The "location" choice is defined as mandatory, so an instance
of one of the cases must be present. I don't know whether it is
necessary or not, but you can avoid it easily by overriding the
definition:
Thanks for explaining this. I'll leave it to the draft authors to evaluate
whether an optio
RFC 8525 defines a YANG data model for information about the YANG modules,
datastores, and datastore schemas used by a network management server. This
data model is based on string representations of YANG identifiers.
To be more useful in a constrained environment (CoRECONF/COMI), it is useful
Jan Kundrát writes:
Hi, I'm augmenting the ietf-network and ietf-network-topology
from RFC 8345, trying to add geolocation information to the
network nodes. I found your draft (thanks for it!),
draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-01. What I am struggling with is
adding the geolocation as an *o
Hi Kent,
Thanks for this. I think 4d is suggesting putting the rfc number in the
comment block too, but having it where it is may be sufficient - you can
add it now or see if there's a request for this later.
I'll ask Ignas (our AD) if he wants it submitted now or once the ID gate
reopens.
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
David
On 10/07/2019 23:07, Kent Watsen wrote:
To each author and contributor listed on the "To" line.
In order to complete the Adoption poll, are you aware of any IPR that
applies
to draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-05? Please Rep
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
David
On 10/07/2019 23:07, Kent Watsen wrote:
To each author and contributor listed on the "To" line.
In order to complete the Adoption poll, are you aware of any IPR that
applies
to WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07? Pl
