Re: [netmod] too long lines from IANA module inclusion

Dear all, `pyang` and I think `yanglint` also know how to extract folded and elements. Just a correction; pyang doesn't extract anything, but rfcstrip does, and it supports folded artwork, and in the latest greatest 1.3 release it even reconizes the proper RFC8792-defined magic strings ;-) Do

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

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:44:31PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > Juergen/Andy, > > > > Option #3 > > > > There is a client on the system that makes changes to running just > > like any other remote clients can make changes to running. System > > generate config that is not editable explicit config

[netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

Hello, I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. module mod_b { namespace "x:example:mod_b"; prefix "mb"; grouping mylist_wrapper { list mylist { key "name";

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

Hi, Michal Vaško wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. > > module mod_b { > namespace "x:example:mod_b"; > prefix "mb"; > > grouping mylist_wrapper { > l

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

> Michal Vaško wrote: > > Hello, > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to> me > > > does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. > > > module mod_b { > > namespace "x:example:mod_b"; > > prefix "mb"; > > > grouping mylist_wrapper {

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

Michal Vaško wrote: > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to> > > > > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. > > > > module mod_b { > > > namespace "x:example:mod_b"; > > > prefix "mb"; >

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

> Michal Vaško wrote: > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to> > > > > > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. > > > > > module mod_b { > > > > namespace "x:example:mod_b"; > > > >

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

> > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which > > > > > > to> > > > > > > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. > > > > > > module mod_b { > > > > > namespace "x

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

On 14. 12. 21 12:03, Michal Vaško wrote: Michal Vaško wrote: Michal Vaško wrote: Hello, I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to> me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. module mod_b { namespace "x:example:mod_b"; prefix "mb"

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

Michal Vaško wrote: > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which > > > > > > > to> > > > > > > > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied. > > > > > > > module

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

Hi, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I cannot find any RFC text that says system-injected config is > > special, especially since > > server implementations exist that treat these edits as just another > > client > > (although probably a 'root' user client). > > Very true (and Juergen’s point

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

> Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > to> > > > > > > > > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

Michal Vaško writes: >> Michal Vaško wrote: >> > > > Michal Vaško wrote: >> > > > > > Michal Vaško wrote: >> > > > > > > Hello, >> > > > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, >> > > > > > > > which >> > > > > > > > to> >> > > > > > > > me does not seem to have a

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

Kent, all, > Of course, some will point to Section 5.1.3: > >However, MUST always be a valid configuration data tree, >as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] > . > > But it has to be obvious that this is a bug. For instance, >

Re: [netmod] Resolving schema node identifier

> Michal Vaško writes: > > >> Michal Vaško wrote: > >> > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > >> > > > > > Michal Vaško wrote: > >> > > > > > > Hello, > >> > > > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, > >> > > > > > > > which > >> > > > > > > > to> > >> > > > > > > > me doe

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

Kent, >> Here you are introducing two concepts that the RFCs (6020, 7950, 8342) are >> never mentioning: online and offline validation. Then you say that because >> the RFCs don't talk about these concepts, the behavior is undefined. I >> strongly disagree. The RFCs talk about validation, and d

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

Hi Jan, >> Of course, some will point to Section 5.1.3: >> >>However, MUST always be a valid configuration data tree, >>as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] >> . >> >> But it has to be obvious that this is a bug. For instanc

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

Hi Kent, >>> Of course, some will point to Section 5.1.3: >>> >>>However, MUST always be a valid configuration data tree, >>>as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] >>> . >>> >>> But it has to be obvious that this is a bug. For

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

Hi Jan, >> It is also notable that RFC 8341 say nothing about the fact that clients >> effected by NACM may not be able to pass validation (it’s not even >> mentioned). > > That a client with insufficient privileges may have trouble understanding or > controlling a server is no surprise to me.

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

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote: > > Right, and in both cases, the idea was that contains all > data needed for the transformation into . So a client that > wants to do "offline" validation would need the data + the > transformation algorithms. But no additional

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

Kent, all, >>> It is also notable that RFC 8341 say nothing about the fact that clients >>> effected by NACM may not be able to pass validation (it’s not even >>> mentioned). >> >> That a client with insufficient privileges may have trouble understanding or >> controlling a server is no surpri

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

>> Right, and in both cases, the idea was that contains all >> data needed for the transformation into . So a client that >> wants to do "offline" validation would need the data + the >> transformation algorithms. But no additional data. >> > > Having to know proprietary transformation algor

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

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:43:47PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > >> Right, and in both cases, the idea was that contains all > >> data needed for the transformation into . So a client that > >> wants to do "offline" validation would need the data + the > >> transformation algorithms. But no

[netmod] Can a derived type of instance-identifier change the require-instance property?

Hi all and martin, If I have defined a typedef a typedef a { type instance-identifier { require-instance false; } } And then I define another typedef b typedef b { type a { require-instance true; } } Is it correct? The same scenario is leafref. 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中