Hi Andy,
Thx for taking a look.
Yes - agree with the "orderly" comment. That was very brief shorthand for the
minutes. By "remove" it could even just mean marking as "obsolete" (with
deprecated as an optional intermediate step).
We aren't trying to redefine the rules for config. But it is wort
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:12 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> YANG Versioning Weekly Call Minutes - 2021-04-13
>
>
>
> Primary discussion was around the BC/NBC rules for state.
>
>
>
> Value space for config false:
>
> - more informative if you actually remov
YANG Versioning Weekly Call Minutes - 2021-04-13
Primary discussion was around the BC/NBC rules for state.
Value space for config false:
- more informative if you actually remove the enum from the model if it isn't
used anymore (vs leaving it in and servers just not returning it)
- a server impl
On 06/04/2021 09:04, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> I see. Okay, thanks for the clarification and yes, if this was explicitly
>> mentioned in the RFC it would be great. Although, the validity of your
>> example was not in question. Rather something like:
>>
>> container foo {
>> if-feature
Hi Chris,
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: 13 April 2021 03:38
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> netmod-geo-location@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 2021,
