Hi Qiufang,
In your first option, did you mean "understand a certain data node is from
or from " ?
It is an interesting question about whether the origin annotation could/should
be available in a read from , and what values that origin could take.
We should consider other transformations
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 2:31 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> Andy - about use cases. Here is a problem we're trying to address:
>
>
>
> There are at least several major router implementations that have this
> concept of "hidden config"
Hi Qiufang,
I think there are use-cases for "immutable" even outside of system config so we
may not want to restrict it to system config.
I'm not sure it would be as simple as erroring when a write is attempted to
that value.
Are you talking about an error at edit time, or at
Hi Kent,
I'm not following your "In the meanwhile" thoughts.
Legacy clients are failing offline validation today. If running config has a
leafref to system config, and doesn't return that system config
(which it doesn't in some implementations), then the instance data returned to
the client
Hi guys,
Andy - about use cases. Here is a problem we're trying to address:
There are at least several major router implementations that have this concept
of "hidden config" (i.e. list entries that can be referenced in a leafref by
explicit user config, but those list entries are not returned
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:27 AM tom petch wrote:
> From: Ladislav Lhotka
> Sent: 08 December 2021 12:38
>
> tom petch writes:
>
> > The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature if-feature
> > "client-base-cfg-parms"; and make uses base-cfg-parms { conditional
> > thereon in module
From: Ladislav Lhotka
Sent: 08 December 2021 12:38
tom petch writes:
> The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature if-feature
> "client-base-cfg-parms"; and make uses base-cfg-parms { conditional
> thereon in module ietf-bfd-types. Reading and re-reading RFC7950,
> especially about
tom petch writes:
> The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature if-feature
> "client-base-cfg-parms"; and make uses base-cfg-parms { conditional
> thereon in module ietf-bfd-types. Reading and re-reading RFC7950,
> especially about mandatory and top-level, I am not convinced that
>
The BFD WG are revising RFC9127 to add a new feature
if-feature "client-base-cfg-parms";
and make
uses base-cfg-parms {
conditional thereon in module ietf-bfd-types. Reading and re-reading RFC7950,
especially about mandatory and top-level, I am not convinced that this is
legal.
