Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system configurations copied/pasted into ?

2021-11-29 Thread Kent Watsen
Hi Juergen, > On Nov 29, 2021, at 6:49 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 03:14:06PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> IMO the least disruptive solution possible should be used. >> There is a use-case for adding "origin" support to the datastore >> in the operation.

Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system configurations copied/pasted into ?

2021-11-29 Thread Andy Bierman
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 3:49 PM Jürgen Schönwälder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 03:14:06PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > IMO the least disruptive solution possible should be used. > > There is a use-case for adding "origin" support to the > datasto

Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system configurations copied/pasted into ?

2021-11-29 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 03:14:06PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > IMO the least disruptive solution possible should be used. > There is a use-case for adding "origin" support to the datastore > in the operation. > This allows an NMDA client to identify system config that is not being used > in .

Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system configurations copied/pasted into ?

2021-11-29 Thread Andy Bierman
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > RFC 7950 rules about leafref validation are very clear. > > Adding a new datastore to these rules requires a massive change to NMDA > > and all implementations. > > Not really or, rather, it seems like it would be just part of ad

Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system configurations copied/pasted into ?

2021-11-29 Thread Kent Watsen
Hi Andy, > RFC 7950 rules about leafref validation are very clear. > Adding a new datastore to these rules requires a massive change to NMDA > and all implementations. Not really or, rather, it seems like it would be just part of adding support for , which implies adding support for (if not sup

Re: [netmod] Must offline-validation of alone be valid?

2021-11-29 Thread Kent Watsen
Hi Jan, > On Nov 23, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Jan Lindblad wrote: > > Sergio, Qiufang, > >> Hi Jan, >> You correctly wrote: >> >> Then the choices become: >> Offline validation of alone is NOT required >> Servers internally validate via validating >> >> SB> but in fact this is what declared

Re: [netmod] IANA registries

2021-11-29 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
On 29. 11. 21 14:32, Robert Varga wrote: On 26/11/2021 09:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: And what do yo do with Early Allocation, which can last more than a year? Sorry, I am not familiar with early allocations, what could be the problem here? The problem is that early allocations are temporary a

[netmod] YANG Versioning Call Nov 30: Agenda & Topics

2021-11-29 Thread Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Here are the planned key discussion topics for the weekly YANG Versioning call tomorrow. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to join the call. Call details are below. - review Balazs's response for Issue #65 (revision label scheme for Packages) - review Jason's text for Issue #84 (motivation for

Re: [netmod] IANA registries

2021-11-29 Thread Robert Varga
On 26/11/2021 09:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: And what do yo do with Early Allocation, which can last more than a year? Sorry, I am not familiar with early allocations, what could be the problem here? The problem is that early allocations are temporary and automatically expire in 12 months (rel