Just done:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/122
Italo
> -Original Message-
> From: Kent Watsen
> Sent: giovedì 23 marzo 2023 22:03
> To: Italo Busi
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base
>
> Italio,
>
> Can you add an item for this issue
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 7:04 PM Jan Lindblad wrote:
> Rob, Jürgen, Kent, WG,
>
> I am strongly opposed to giving up the idea that running must always be
> valid. This is one of the landmark properties that has made NETCONF the
> most useful management interface for network automation ever. For a
Hi, Jan
In the second case you've described below, " servers accept references to
pieces of hardware that are currently missing, and just mark them as
operationally down." Is this missing hardware related configuration also not
present in ? Would a server treat this configuration as invalid if
Hi, Rob
It seems that we are getting back to the discussion about whether
must always be valid
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/t6qgW7c-RiaioejjYWWb9jbOpR0/).
Comments from the WG on this issue are quite split. I fully agree things would
become much easier if we don't always ask
