Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Support. On 10/1/18, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this draft, and no objections. This email starts an adoption poll for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Re: [netmod] YANG module security considerations template - TLS reference

quot; > has since passed to Ignas. > > Kent > > > > ?-----Original Message- > From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" > Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM > To: Martin Bjorklund , "netmod-cha...@ietf.org" &g

Re: [netmod] YANG module security considerations template - TLS reference

Agreed - although I'm not sure who has control over the template either. For drafts that are in-progress, IDNITs will flag this obsolete reference and, for at least one of the drafts I'm an editor, I've already made the update. Thanks, Acee On 10/1/18, 3:19 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bj

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02

Yes/support Thanks, Acee On 9/26/18, 10:41 AM, "netmod on behalf of joel jaeggli" wrote: This is start of a two week poll on making draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group document. You may review at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module

Re: [netmod] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: (with DISCUSS)

Mirja, See inline. On 9/25/18, 6:29 PM, "netmod on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" wrote: Hi Mahesh, hi Eliot, please see below. > Am 25.09.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Eliot Lear : > > Just on this point: > > On 25.09.18 20:35, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:

Re: [netmod] xpath for must statements

Hi Martin, On 8/8/18, 7:31 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > Thanks Martin - see inline. > > On 8/8/18, 3:43 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: > > Hi, > > "Ace

Re: [netmod] xpath for must statements

Hi William, On 8/8/18, 4:41 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ivory, William" wrote: On 07/08/18 23:01, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Is it possible to indicate that choice statement must be specified in a YANG 1.1 “must” clause w/o specifying every case? Similarly, it is there a wa

Re: [netmod] xpath for must statements

Thanks Martin - see inline. On 8/8/18, 3:43 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: Hi, "Acee Lindem \(acee\)" wrote: > Is it possible to indicate that choice statement must be specified > in a YANG 1.1 “must” clause w/o specifying every case?

[netmod] xpath for must statements

Is it possible to indicate that choice statement must be specified in a YANG 1.1 “must” clause w/o specifying every case? Similarly, it is there a way specify that a container cannot be empty in “must” clause? Thanks, Acee ___ netmod mailing list netmod

Re: [netmod] 6087bis - Security Considerations template

Hi Martin, On 8/6/18, 2:51 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: Hi, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > Shawn Emery reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10 and made this > editorial comment: > > OLD: > > These are the subtrees and

Re: [netmod] "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix

Hi Benoit, et al, I couldn't agree more. The IETF has much more exigent issues with respect to YANG models and the attendant protocol infrastructure than whether IANA might go away in the future. Thanks, Acee On 7/22/18, 9:54 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" wrote: Martin,

Re: [netmod] "iana" in yang modules' name/namespace/prefix

Hi Martin, I would prefer not using "reg" since it will always be an abbreviation for a machine language register to me. I'd favor using "registry" in the module name and the more cryptic "reg" in the module prefix. Thanks, Acee On 7/20/18, 9:46 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" w

Re: [netmod] YANG identities and identityref's

On 5/3/18, 4:23 PM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > > > On 5/3/18, 2:40 PM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 18:00 +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Hi

Re: [netmod] YANG identities and identityref's

On 5/3/18, 2:40 PM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 18:00 +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Lada, > > So you have a base identify of foo-type and subordinates of foo-type-1, foo- > type-2, ... foo-type-9. You have a data leaf

Re: [netmod] YANG identities and identityref's

om/derived-from- or-self) should be the most general identity that can match at the given place. Do you have any example illustrating your case? Lada On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:30 +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Let’s say one define a base identity with a

[netmod] YANG identities and identityref's

Let’s say one define a base identity with a hierarchy of identifyref’s using it. This will allow for augmentation in future models. Should one also define an identityref for the class of unknown identities? Or, should one simply return the lowest parent in the hierarchy matching the value? Many

Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

From: netmod on behalf of "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:59 AM To: Adam Roach , Andy Bierman Cc: NetMod WG Chairs , "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087...@ietf.org" , The IESG , NetMod WG Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on d

Re: [netmod] Correction, date It ends Feb 20th Re: Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

I support netmod WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: netmod on behalf of joel jaeggli Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 6:58 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] Correction, date It ends Feb 20th Re: Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02 Sorry, Feb 20th is the end date for

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11.txt

rk item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF. Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version) Authors : Ladislav Lhotka Acee Lindem Yingzhen Qu Filename:

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-10.txt

This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF. Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version) Authors : Ladislav Lhotka Acee Lindem Yingzhen Qu Fil

Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Suresh, Thanks for the review - see inline. On 1/24/18, 10:43 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, On 1/23/18, 9:56 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines

Re: [netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06

Thanks Francis! Acee On 1/23/18, 5:55 PM, "Francis Dupont" wrote: Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review result: Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

ontinue to believe that the time difference between doing the right thing and doing something faster using definition we are in the process to deprecate is really small. But of course, I may be entirely wrong. /js On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:18:15PM +0000, Acee Lindem (a

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Hi Lada, My primary concern is that the YANG Schema Mount delay will not only hold the NI/LNE but all the models that are dependent on them (e.g., L2VPN and L3VPN). This is for a document that has already finished WG Last Call. Additionally, your estimate for the size of the change and time to

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-15

Hi Sonal, From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sonal Agarwal mailto:sagarwa...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 7:25 PM To: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod]

Re: [netmod] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08.txt

Hi Jia, Thanks for your review. The Appendix D nit has been fixed in the -09 version (the only change). Thanks, Acee On 1/17/18, 1:50 AM, "Hejia (Jia)" wrote: >Hello, > >I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. >The Routing Directorate seeks to review all rout

Re: [netmod] Reminder: WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Hi Rob, On 1/15/18, 10:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: >Hi Martin, > >All OK with me except where I have further comments/questions inline >below: > >On 15/01/2018 14:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the review! Commen

Re: [netmod] Netmod ACL - Can "access-lists" be set up as a "grouping"

Hi Jon, From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Jon Shallow mailto:supjps-i...@jpshallow.com>> Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 10:47 AM To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org" mailto:n

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08.txt

Network Modeling WG of the IETF. > >Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NDMA >Version) >Authors : Ladislav Lhotka > Acee Lindem > Yingzhen Qu > Filename: draft-

Re: [netmod] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07

Hey Joe, Thanks for the review. See replies inline. On 1/6/18, 3:30 PM, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" wrote: >Reviewer: Joe Clarke >Review result: Ready > >I am completing this review as a representative of the ops directorate. >This >document describes an NMDA-compliant version of the ietf-routing f

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06.txt

ta Model for Routing Management (NDMA Version) Authors : Ladislav Lhotka Acee Lindem Yingzhen Qu Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06.txt Pages : 77 Date: 2017-12-22

Re: [netmod] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06.txt

Hi Lada, Tom, Okay - no sense in derailing this draft based on an example if there isn’t consensus. Thanks, Acee On 1/2/18, 5:42 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 17:25 +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Benoit, >> >> On 12/27/17, 6

Re: [netmod] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06.txt

Network Modeling WG of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management >>>(NDMA >>> Version) >>> Authors : Ladislav Lhotka >>> Acee Lindem >>>

[netmod] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06.txt

fts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF. > >Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NDMA >Version) >Authors : Ladislav Lhotka > Acee Lindem >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01

Hi Lada, On 12/18/17, 7:19 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Hi Acee, > >"Acee Lindem (acee)" writes: > >> Hi Lou, et al, >> >> The only issue we are struggling with is whether we need to specify the >> version in the ietf-interfaces impor

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01

Hi Vladimir, On 12/18/17, 6:24 AM, "Vladimir Vassilev" wrote: > > >On 12/17/2017 05:57 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Lou, et al, >> >> The only issue we are struggling with is whether we need to specify the >> version in the ietf-interfaces impo

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01

Hi Lou, et al, The only issue we are struggling with is whether we need to specify the version in the ietf-interfaces import. We have noted that draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01.txt does not import by revision. We also have so nits: 1. Add an informative reference for [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tr

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-04.txt

itle : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NDMA >Version) >Authors : Ladislav Lhotka > Acee Lindem > Yingzhen Qu > Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-04.txt > Pages : 74 &g

Re: [netmod] YANG module security considerations

Hi Lada, et al, I haven’t seen any response to this. Your suggestion seems to me to be more technically accurate. Thanks, Acee On 12/1/17, 7:13 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Hi, > >the security considerations template text [1] that has already been used >in a >number of d

Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

Hi Benoit, On 12/5/17, 8:18 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" wrote: >On 11/3/2017 5:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Thanks for comments - see inline. >> >> On 10/29/17, 8:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev" &

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

I have reviewed the document and support publication. Thanks, Acee On 11/28/17, 2:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: >[resending] > > >All, > >This starts a two-week working group last call on >draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00. > >Please recall that this update's intention is to >mo

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

I have reviewed the draft and support publication. Thanks, Acee On 11/28/17, 2:29 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: >All, > >This starts a two-week working group last call on >draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00. > >Please recall that this update's intention is to >modify the YANG modul

Re: [netmod] document organization

Hi Lada, If the consensus is not split the document, I think it would be useful to formally define the “inline” and “uses” options with examples very early. As it is, there is a brief definition of “inline” but nothing for “uses” and one must deduct this implicitly. Thanks, Acee On 11/15/17, 1:

Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

Hi Vladimir, Thanks for comments - see inline. On 10/29/17, 8:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev" wrote: >Hello, > >I have reviewed draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05. My conclusion is that >the YANG modules part of the draft have been successfully modified in >accordance with sec. '4.

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Hi Xufeng, I support publication of this document. Thanks, Acee >>-Original Message- >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen >> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 5:38 PM >> To: netmod@ietf.org >> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mo

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14

Hi Mahesh, On 10/25/17, 9:22 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" wrote: >Acee, > >Thanks for reviewing the draft. > >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> Hi Kent, Mahesh, et al, >> >> I have read the draft and support publ

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14

Hi Kent, Mahesh, et al, I have read the draft and support publication. I have two comments on the -14 version. 1. The tree diagrams do not fit within the draft pages. Note that recent versions of pyang support the —tree-line-length parameter and this may help. 2. While it is non-normative,

Re: [netmod] Netmod IETF 100 Slot Requests - Singapore

Hi Michael, The authors of RFC 8022 BIS would like a 10-15 minute slot for an update on the document. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05.txt Note that by IETF 100 it will most likely be a WG document. Thanks, Acee From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf o

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-08

I have reviewed prior versions of the draft and read this version. I unequivocally support publication. Thanks, Acee On 10/21/17, 10:10 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: >[changing subject line] > >All, > >Please use the just-posted -08 version instead. > >In addition to changing the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

On 10/18/17, 8:35 AM, "netmod on behalf of Eric Voit (evoit)" wrote: >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, October 18, 2017 2:22 AM >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:06:44PM +, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: >> > >> > Section 3.10: There should be a normative set of YANG validation >>tools which >> are

[netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05.txt

On 10/14/17, 2:30 PM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05.txt >has been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis >Revision: 05 &

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-03

As co-author, I support and am not aware of any IPR. Thanks, acee On 10/13/17, 10:37 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: >All, > >Now that we have resolved the module naming issue on the list (i.e. >that keeps the original rfc module names and updates the unwanted >legacy nodes to have

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

are every bit as important as knowing, for example, whether or not a schema leaf is a presence node. Thanks, Acee On 9/15/17, 9:56 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >+1 - Also it is hard enough to format the tree output to fit in a draft >w/o further annotations (even with —-

Re: [netmod] Correction: WG adoption poll draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee On 9/18/17, 3:47 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: >The draft being polled in this thread is >draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00 > >Lou > >On 9/18/2017 3:15 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >> All, >> >> This is start of a two week poll on making >> draft-bjo

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 (resend)

I have read this document and support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee On 9/18/17, 2:29 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: >All, > >This is start of a two week poll on making >draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 a working group document. Please >send email to the list indicating "yes/support"

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02

As a co-author, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, Acee On 9/18/17, 9:48 AM, "Lou Berger" wrote: >Authors, Contributors, WG, > >As part of the preparation for WG Last Call: > >Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? > >Please state eit

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, With respect to WG adoption, we will do whatever the WG decides for the RFC 8022 model. We have a strong preference toward not carrying the deprecated nodes forward and new module versions appears to be a good way to achieve this. I agree with Lada that deprecating all the schema nodes is u

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

+1 - Also it is hard enough to format the tree output to fit in a draft w/o further annotations (even with —-tree-line-length). Thanks, Acee On 9/15/17, 6:21 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Andy Bierman píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 08:43 -0700: >> Hi, >> >> >> Actually I liked t

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Rob, On 9/14/17, 9:37 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: >Hi Kent & Lou, > >When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process >on these drafts? > >I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for >adoptio

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

recated "/foo-state" branch, right? We would also have to use the >deprecated “interface-state-ref”? > >Thanks, >- Xufeng > >> -Original Message----- >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen >> Sent: Thursday, September 7,

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

Hi Kent, On 9/7/17, 3:30 PM, "Kent Watsen" wrote: >Hi Acee, > >> Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes. > >Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's? >I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on >these nmda-update draft

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes. However, what about secondary and tertiary implications of moving to NDMA? If we change a path from “interface-state-ref” to “interface-ref” to reference an interface, I’d hope no one would expect the old statement to be kept a

Re: [netmod] Potential additions to rfc6087bis: RegEx guidelines

Juergen, On 9/2/17, 3:33 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:45:51AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> On 01/09/2017 00:57, Alex Campbell wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > I'd be very wary of adding guidelines that restrict th

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Martin, On 8/30/17, 6:28 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >Hi, > >Kent Watsen wrote: >> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00 > >I found some trivial errors in this draft: > > o The revision for ietf-routing doesn't match the filename's date. > > o The filename for

Re: [netmod] Pattern statements [was Re: Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0]

1, 2017 at 11:14 AM To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "Ivory, William" mailto:william.iv...@intl.att.com>>, "'netmod@ietf.org'" mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>, Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Subject: Pattern statements [was Re: [n

Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1

Hi Martin, On 8/22/17, 6:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >Hi, > >Lada presented an open issue in schema mount in Prague. (See slide 6 >in >https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-netmod-sessb-s >chema-mount) > >The original problem comes from the NI us

Re: [netmod] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00.txt

From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> Date: Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM To: Martin Bjorklund mailto:m...@tail-f.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org" mailto:netmod@ietf.org

Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0

Hi William, Rob, Andy, Given their limited usefulness and the detriments, perhaps we should discourage the creation of new submodules in RFC6087Bis. Thanks, Acee On 8/21/17, 9:44 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ivory, William" wrote: >Hi Rob, > >That would make it very hard to update existing 1.x YAN

[netmod] Identities vs enums

All, In the context iana-routing-types.yang, we’ve been having a discussion of the merits of identities vs enums. We’ve followed the lead of RFC 7224 and used identities which allow augmentation. However, for IANA code points, there could be merit in having the type represent the actual numeric

Re: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value space for config vs state

Hi Jason, From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" mailto:jason.ste...@nokia.com>> Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:32 PM To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: RE:

Re: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value space for config vs state

Hi Jason, From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" mailto:jason.ste...@nokia.com>> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 6:22 AM To: "netmod@ietf.org" mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value spac

Re: [netmod] ACL draft defines ether-type as a string

My thoughts exactly… A sparse enum is the rational approach. Thanks, Acee On 7/19/17, 2:37 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: >I like the union approach. > >I'm not sure that we really want IEEE to have to define an enum entry >for every possibl

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

Mahesh, From: Mahesh Jethanandani mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:21 PM To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>>, Marc Holness mailto:mholn...@ciena.com>>, Glenn Parsons

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

Hi Mahesh, Benoit, Draft Authors, In terms of a layer-2 ACL, I’d want to be able to match ether-type against any 2-octet number. Hence, I think a string is a very poor choice here. In support of the above statement, one only needs to look at the existing IEEE registry for ether type. https://r

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #4

My opinion is absolutely not. Past attempts to mix forwarding and routing policy have been, at best, very confusing. This issue should be removed from section 8 and closed. Thanks, Acee From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.c

Re: [netmod] Some comments on yang tree diagrams

Hi Michael, On 6/19/17, 3:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of wangzitao" wrote: >Hi Authors, > >I have read this draft and think it is very useful. However, IMHO, there >are also something need to improved. For example: ># In section2 Tree Diagram Syntax, it describes " ! for a presence >container", b

Re: [netmod] Question about ietf-routing

+YANG Routing Design Team On 6/7/17, 2:25 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Hi Alex, > >in earlier revisions of the ietf-routing module (up to >draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-17), we had a configuration item >("recipient-ribs") that allowed for assigning RIBs to routing protocol >instances. The reaso

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chin-netmod-iana-af-numbers-00.txt

agreement on that, I'd like to follow >the fad. It's never too late to follow. Thanks. > >BR >///Chin > >-Original Message- >From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 7:32 PM >To: Chin Chen ; kwat...@juniper.net; >lber...@labn

Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chin-netmod-iana-af-numbers-00.txt

Chin, These are already defined in iana-routing-types … https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-04.txt Furthermore, if you propose future YANG models, let's not bring back MIB-esque camelCase naming conventions. Like baggy jeans and neon, it was a fad should rest in peace with the

[netmod] Impact of "Network Management Datastore Architecture" (NMDA) on ietf-key-chain

For those who are not following the draft or discussion, I’m referring to https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01.txt After numerous meetings on the NMDA, I would assert that the ietf-key-chain model is in the category which can go directly to NMDA without any migration.

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Yes/Support Thanks, Acee P.S. Jeff Tantsura should have trademarked the ³Yes/Support² replyŠ On 4/7/17, 7:22 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: >All, > >This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a >NETMOD working group document: > > draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tr

Re: [netmod] LL review of draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-03

Hi Rob, On 3/10/17, 9:46 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: >Lada, > >Thanks for the comments, some further comments inline ... > > >On 10/03/2017 14:09, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> please see inline. >> >> Robert Wilton writes: >>

Re: [netmod] security considerations boilerplate updates to cover RESTCONF

I¹m if I looked hard enough I'd find it. However, I imagine many others will have the same question. Where is Wiki or format URL where the boilerplate will be maintained? Thanks, Acee On 3/17/17, 11:36 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote: > >Adding a final thought to this, I found it

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Excellent!! Thanks, Acee On 3/11/17, 4:49 PM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >"Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> On 3/8/17, 2:34 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" >> > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Hi Juergen, On 3/8/17, 2:34 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:56:20PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: >> >> This way, reader can focus more quickly on the diffs, but also this >> likely mimics what happened in reality (start with `pyang -f tree` >> an

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-13.txt

lf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group of the IETF. > >Title : Routing Key Chain YANG Data Model >

Re: [netmod] RFC 7277: ip-address-origin

On 12/16/16, 8:39 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >Lada, > >when would I use link-layer and when link-local? Perhaps all needed is >a clarification of the description of link-layer? (Perhaps link-local >would have been a better name but too late now...) > >An RFC 3927 add

Re: [netmod] RFC 7277: ip-address-origin

Semantically, link-local seems more like a type of address than the origin of the address. Also, the enum already has the type ³link-layer². Thanks, Acee On 12/16/16, 8:33 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Hi, > >I think that one important enum is missing in the "ip-address-ori

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04

Support. Thanks, Acee On 12/12/16, 6:31 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: >All, > >This is start of a two week* poll on making >draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04 a NetMod working group >document. > >Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not >support". I

Re: [netmod] Key Strings in ietf-key-chain operational state

y omit the string was somewhat lame. However, write wasn't a factor since most implementations didn't support MIB variable update. From: rtgwg mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:07 PM To:

Re: [netmod] Key Strings in ietf-key-chain operational state

evised datastore proposal. > >K. > > >On 12/2/16, 7:45 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > >Hi Kent, >So are you suggesting the nacm:default-deny-all for key strings rather >than omitting it from the operational state? >Thanks, >Acee > >On 12/2/1

Re: [netmod] Key Strings in ietf-key-chain operational state

gt; > > >On 12/1/16, 11:28 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" >j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >OK. I misread your statement. Sorry for the noise. > >/js > >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 01:35:15PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

Yes/Support On 12/2/16, 4:26 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: >All, > >This is start of a two week poll on making >draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00 a NetMod working group >document. This document is unusual in that WG last call will be jointly >held in both the NetConf and N

Re: [netmod] Key Strings in ietf-key-chain operational state

On 12/1/16, 3:20 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:37:21PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >> In the days of MIBs, we used to omit key strings from the data that >>would be returned. This was ostensibly done for security purposes

Re: [netmod] Key Strings in ietf-key-chain operational state

Hi Mahesh, From: Mahesh Jethanandani mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] Key Str

[netmod] Key Strings in ietf-key-chain operational state

In the days of MIBs, we used to omit key strings from the data that would be returned. This was ostensibly done for security purposes. We did the same for the operational state returned for keystring in key-chain-entries. I'm now thinking this was a mistake. Rather, it would seem that one could

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-han-netmod-intf-ext-ppp-yang-00.txt

Hi Hansance, I believe this is the right place since other RFC 7223 augmentations are here. Thanks, Acee On 11/24/16, 3:11 AM, "netmod on behalf of Hansance Han" wrote: >Hi Lou and Kent, > >I submitted a YANG draft about PPP feature, while PPP WG is concluded for >a long time, I didn't know w

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

could be provided in standard model augmentations in future modules. Thanks, Acee From: David Bannister mailto:d...@netflix.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, Eliot Lear mailto

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

Hi David, From: David Bannister mailto:d...@netflix.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM To: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Cc: Eliot Lear mailto:l...@cisco.com>>, Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, Dean Bogdanovic mailto:ivand...@gmail.

<    1   2   3   >