Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

On 7/28/16, 10:42 AM, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >On 28/07/2016 15:20, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 28 Jul 2016, at 15:57, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>&g

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

Hi Lada, On 7/28/16, 9:52 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Robert Wilton writes: > >> On 26/07/2016 21:36, Kent Watsen wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So my thinking is that if we can't merge "foo-state" into

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

From: netmod > on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani > Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:07 PM To: Xufeng Liu > Cc: netmod WG

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

From: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:19 AM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

From: netmod > on behalf of Kent Watsen > Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:36 PM To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" >,

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

On 7/15/16, 10:23 AM, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >On 15/07/2016 15:16, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> On 7/14/16, 4:00 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: >>

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

uot; ><netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lber...@labn.net> wrote: > >Acee, > >I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand >the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're >thinking here. Can you elaborate what you'r

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

From: netmod > on behalf of Andy Bierman > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" > Cc:

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.o

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

Hi Andy, From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM To: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>> Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.o

Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

bn.net> wrote: >Acee, > >I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand >the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're >thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? > >Thanks, > >Lou > >On 7/11/

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-22.txt

from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the >IETF. > >Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management >Authors : Ladislav Lhotka > Acee Lind

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

Hi Mahesh, From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM To: Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com> Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata)

Re: [netmod] Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input

I agree that option B is the best way forward. The sooner we reach the consensus the sooner we can discuss how this can simply models that are waiting for the IETF OpsState direction. Thanks, Acee On 6/8/16, 11:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of cho...@chopps.org"

Re: [netmod] "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management" Modifications

ince inet:ipv[46]-address > cannot be empty, we would need to define the type of "address" as a > union of empty string and inet:ipv[46]-address. > >Lada > >> >> If there is anything I can help with the modification, please let me >>know. >> >> Thanks, >> Ying

Re: [netmod] identical RIB augmentations in OSPF and ISIS YANG models

Hi Lada, Helen, On 5/25/16, 9:58 AM, "Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen" wrote: >Hi Lada, > >"metric" in this case is the operational state metric (or cost) of a >route, and >has identical definitions in in all three drafts (OSPF, ISIS, and RIB >extension). >(They're all defined to

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

Hi Dean, From: Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com<mailto:ivand...@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 7:39 AM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA)" <jason.ste...@nokia.com<mailto:jason.ste...@

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

Hi Dean, From: netmod > on behalf of Dean Bogdanovic > Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:26 AM To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA)" > Cc:

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

On 3/8/16, 6:35 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> On 08 Mar 2016, at 12:08, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/8/16, 1:55 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: >

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

On 3/8/16, 1:55 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: >Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:23:50AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> > >> > The thing ab

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

On 3/8/16, 1:47 AM, "j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:23:50AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> The thing about the static route definition for IPv4 and IPv6 is that >>thei

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

> On Mar 7, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Lada, > > On 3/7/16, 8:45 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> writes: >> >>> H

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

Hi Lada, On 3/7/16, 8:45 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >"Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> writes: > >> Hi Lada, >> >> On 3/4/16, 8:00 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >> >>>&qu

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

Hi Lada, On 3/3/16, 8:01 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >"Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> writes: > >> Hi Lada, NETMOD WG members, >> >> There are actually a number of changes that we would like to >> see in the i

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

Hi Lada, NETMOD WG members, There are actually a number of changes that we would like to see in the ietf-routing model: - Remove routing-instances since ietf-routing since it will be “mounted” at different points in the device hierarchy dependent on the device requirements. - Collapse it

Re: [netmod] Consistency in YANG for Router IDs [Was: WG Chair comments on draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang-02]

On 3/2/16, 4:45 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: >On 2/26/2016 1:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Benoit, Lada, >> >> On 2/26/16, 3:32 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)" >> <netmod-boun...@i

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

On 2/3/16, 1:18 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > >> On 03 Feb 2016, at 03:24, Kent Watsen wrote: >> >> >> [Chair hat on] >> >> Given the number of competing/complementing drafts involved, and the >>general lack of discussion on any of them, a virtual

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

wdz > >The first poll is now deleted. For the couple of folks that put values >there, please fill in your values again on this new poll. > >Kent > > > > > >On 2/3/16, 6:59 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> >>

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

All, On 1/27/16, 9:45 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >Eliot, > >I posted a technical review of the ACL draft on December 11th to the >list since the document was send to WG last call. I believe

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

On 1/22/16, 12:56 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ebben Aries" wrote: > >On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >> 1. This draft defines two module, one is IETF-PACKET-FIELDS, the other >>is ietf-access-control-list module, >> I am wondering

Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries

On 1/11/16, 2:54 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Hi Gert, >> >> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote: >> > >> > Lada, >> > >> > The requirement

Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries

On 1/11/16, 3:13 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:13PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> My opinion is that there is a 1-1 relationship between “applied” and >> “intended” conf

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Hi Martin, et al, On 1/8/16, 2:54 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: >Hi, > >"Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/23/15, 3:22 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" >> <netmod-boun...@i

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 1/8/16, 7:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: >>> Hi Juergen, >>> >>> On 07/01/2016

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Juergen, As another non-author, I disagree with this characterization of the draft. The intended/applied configuration is an important requirement but certainly not the only one precisely articulated in the draft. Acee On 1/5/16, 3:02 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 10:46 AM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz<mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>, Kent Watsen <kwat...

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:18 AM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz<mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>, Kent Watsen <kwat...

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

Hi Rob, Thanks for authoring the comprehensive response. I’m in complete agreement and support publication of the document. Thanks, Acee On 12/18/15, 6:33 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)"

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-yang-coord] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Hi Lada, On 11/25/15, 3:26 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >"Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> writes: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> I think using the more generic term, “networking”, at the top would be >> preferable.

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

refinement, while still others have greatness thrust upon them. routing-cfg would fall into the last category… Thanks, Acee On 11/24/15, 4:24 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: >Hi, > >"Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >&

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS. These discussions are ongoing. One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base instance container from routing-instance to

Re: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

+--rw v4ur:route* [destination-prefix] > | +--rw v4ur:destination-prefixinet:ipv4-prefix > | +--rw v4ur:description? string > | +--rw v4ur:next-hop > | +--rw (next-hop-options)

Re: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

-instance references. However, heretofore, no models are referencing the interface leaf-refs in the list. Other than the Routing YANG Design Team having chosen the first option - are there any other opinions? Thanks, Acee On 10/9/15, 9:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" &l

Re: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

Hi Lada, I2RS is not chartered to do the base models. There are other routing models that reference routing-cfg and even in-progress implementations. On 10/9/15, 4:13 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Hi, > >I am sorry for

Re: [netmod] ACL Model 03 - ACL Type should be mandatory

On 9/21/15, 10:23 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >"Sterne, Jason (Jason)" writes: > >> Hi all, >> >> I met with Dean at IETF93 and we agreed that I should send a specific >>proposal to the

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

Since the meeting is only an hour, I think it is unrealistic to think we are going to cover both Ops-state and model structure tomorrow. Thanks, Acee From: netmod > on behalf of Kent Watsen >

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Date: Friday, August 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com<mailto:m...@tail-f.com>>, "r...@rob.sh<mailto:r...@rob.sh>" <r...@rob.sh<mailto:r...@rob.sh>>, "netmod@ietf.

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

On 8/28/15, 9:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote: Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote: On 8/28/15, 8:55 AM, netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of m...@tail-f.com wrote: Rob Shakir r...@rob.sh wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that a

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

From: Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 4:15 PM To: Acee Lindem a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com Cc: Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) eina...@cisco.commailto:eina...@cisco.com, Jonathan Hansford jonat...@hansfords.netmailto:jonat

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com On 8/1/15, 2:51 AM, j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.demailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de wrote: Section 1.1 in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt lists

<    1   2   3