Re: [netmod] comments on draft-jouqui-netmod-yang-full-include

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:15 PM Jean Quilbeuf wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > Many thanks for your comments, they make a lot of sense. We will work on > it and propose a new version of the draft. > > > > Regarding point 5), can you elaborate on the problems caused by the > anydata node. As I see it,

Re: [netmod] IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all, FWIW, the proposed changes to address the point mentioned by Mahesh [1] can be seen at: description text by boucadair · Pull Request #51 · boucadair/rfc8407bis (github.com) For convenience, the changes can be tracked here: Diff:

Re: [netmod] comments on draft-jouqui-netmod-yang-full-include

Hi Andy, Many thanks for your comments, they make a lot of sense. We will work on it and propose a new version of the draft. Regarding point 5), can you elaborate on the problems caused by the anydata node. As I see it, it is inconvenient to have this extra node which does not have any real

[netmod] comments on draft-jouqui-netmod-yang-full-include

Hi, The presentation yesterday helped me understand the motivation for this work. Seems simple enough, but rife with unintended consequences. RFC 8528 does a good job of dealing with most of these issues, but it is not a design-time modification like this draft is proposing. I would like to see