NETMOD WG,
Please fill out this survey.
Thanks!
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings
> Date: May 5, 2020 at 7:48:03 AM EDT
> To: IETF WG Chairs
>
> Please circulate this to your working group lists.
From: Martin Björklund
Sent: 05 May 2020 12:39
Cc: lho...@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org
tom petch wrote:
> RFC8349 specifies an action with no input and says that modules that
> use this MUST augment the input with a leaf and that the leaf must
> be named destination-address.
>
> Is there any way that
Hello,
I added a new issue about draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning at
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/58.
A specific revision-label identifies a specific version (variant) of the
module. If two files contain YANG modules with the same module name and the
same revision-label
tom petch wrote:
> RFC8349 specifies an action with no input and says that modules that
> use this MUST augment the input with a leaf and that the leaf must
> be named destination-address.
>
> Is there any way that YANG can enforce either constraint?
This may look correct:
action activate-rou
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 12:06:34PM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> > Sent: 05 May 2020 11:30
> > To: p...@hedeland.org
> > Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
> >
> > Per Hedeland wrote:
> > > On 2020-05
RFC8349 specifies an action with no input and says that modules that use this
MUST augment the input with a leaf and that the leaf must be named
destination-address.
Is there any way that YANG can enforce either constraint?
Tom Petch
___
netmod mail
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> Sent: 05 May 2020 11:30
> To: p...@hedeland.org
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
>
> Per Hedeland wrote:
> > On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Tue
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" wrote:
> [As an individual contributor]
>
> Is this something that we should try and improve in a future revision
> of YANG?
>
> E.g., deprecating either rpc or action, and allow the other one to be
> specified more flexibly? Looking at the encodings it might make more
>
Per Hedeland wrote:
> On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> >>> "operation", ei
On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
>> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
>>> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a
[As an individual contributor]
I'm not keen on the idea of adding information related to
deprecation/obsoletion to the data node description.
I think that this will cause problems for schema comparison, since tooling
cannot easily understand the semantic difference in changes in description and
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> > "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
>
> So, no rpc statement, and thereby no poss
[As an individual contributor]
Is this something that we should try and improve in a future revision of YANG?
E.g., deprecating either rpc or action, and allow the other one to be specified
more flexibly? Looking at the encodings it might make more sense to make rpc
more generic and deprecate
On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
So, no rpc statement, and thereby no possibility to extend NETCONF
with new RPCs? (Or to be precise, YANG would exten
On 05/05/2020 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
Yeah, and we could introduce 'operation' as a generalized concept and
have rpc/action be just syntactic aliases for
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:00:11AM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
>
+1
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 20
Hi,
If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
"operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
/martin
Christian Hopps wrote:
> An action is defined as being something bound to a node. Talking about
> actions that aren't bound to a node is talking about RPCs AF
An action is defined as being something bound to a node. Talking about actions
that aren't bound to a node is talking about RPCs AFAICT. In the server it just
comes down to passing the bound node data in to the function or not. Defining
"unbound actions" to replace RPCs is just different syntax
19 matches
Mail list logo
