"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
Andy
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 3:02 PM Kent Watsen wrote:
> Authors,
>
> Per the 109 session, it is the chairs intent to do another adoption call
> on the "yang-node-tags” draft. In preparation for that, we’ve determined
> both that the
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:51 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> RFC8808 talks about a use-case where a network element first comes from
> the factory.
>
>
>
> Would it also make sense to use the factory default configuration in a
> scenario
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:09 PM joel jaeggli wrote:
> Rob,
>
> These seem like reasonable suggestions.
>
> Lets see what the authors say.
>
> Thanks for this
> joel
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:47 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is my AD review for
ex-string. But hex-string was only
> introduced in the second standard version of ietf-yang-types in rfc 6991.
> So the import should be something like "revision 2013-07-15 or derived;".
>
>
>
> Rgds,
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:55 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> I continue to have a problem with changing YANG import semantics using
> extension statements. Versioning people should understand that this is
> an NBC change and hence they should request that
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 9:53 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:05:27PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags-05
>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:56 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> There are generic preprocessors such as good old cpp or m4 that can do
> wonderful things if there is a need to split large (YANG module) files
> into smaller pieces. The question here is what
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:20 AM tom petch wrote:
> Looking at an I-D with endless submodules, I am left thinking
>
> Costs
>
> greater in size
> more complex to understand
> harder to review
> more likely to have undetected errors
>
>
How about "confusion due to false sense of modularity"?
People
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:40 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:00:42AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:42 AM Vladimir Vassilev <
> > vladi...@lightside-instruments.com> wrote:
&g
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:42 AM Vladimir Vassilev <
vladi...@lightside-instruments.com> wrote:
> On 17/07/2020 21.14, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
> > - How do we deal with xpath expressions in other encodings
> > such as JSON. Do we assume an xpath context populated with
> > module names such
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:25 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> The example we've been using to discuss this is an editorial type change
> in 2 submodules (moving a leaf between them with no changes to their
> definition or the schema).
>
> But if we consider
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:50 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> As someone who is heavily involved in the development of an extensive YANG
> model comprised of submodules, I'm not a fan of mandating that include by
> revision is mandatory for
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 4:07 AM tom petch wrote:
> From: netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman
> (rrahman)
> Sent: 08 May 2020 15:13
>
> Hi,
>
> We discussed using something along the lines of
> module-or-submodule-name['@'date]['#'revision-label].yang. Questions to the
> WG:
> 1) Is there a need
ue 1 in
the corresponding position and octet.
Andy
*From:* core *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 8, 2020 8:58 AM
> *To:* Carsten Bormann
> *Cc:* c...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [core] [netmod] CBOR YANG encoding of union & bits
> [draft-ietf-core
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:22 PM Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> On 2020-05-08, at 05:27, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >
>> > Why is the bit position allowed to be a uint32 in YANG? Who knows, but
>>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:22 PM Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-05-08, at 05:27, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Why is the bit position allowed to be a uint32 in YANG? Who knows, but
> it has to be supported.
>
> If we think that is the way to go, I like Kio’s proposal
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:22 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >> Or, if it is supported by the language then is it reasonable that
> >> implementation SHOULD support it? In which case I think that we
> might
> >> need a second encoding of bits that supports
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 8:52 AM Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> > 1) Regarding the encoding of the bits datatype:
> > [draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12, section 6.7]
> >
> > The CBOR YANG encoding of the bits datatype is defined as a byte string
> encoding of a bitfield. However, my concern
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:38 AM Martin Björklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > Hello,
> > While status-description is not a critical part of this work, it is
> > still useful, does not harm and is such a small addition, I do not
> > understand why Martin objects.
>
> Every
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:54 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi Qin,
>
> This document was discussed today. I think that Roman plans to follow up
> regarding the security considerations discuss.
>
> From the discussion today, and reading the Discuss, my understanding is
> that Roman has two
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:56 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> Please use YANG security considerations template from
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:43 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 03:16:58PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > [changing subject line]
> >
> > > On Apr 17, 2020, at 4:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
Hi,
I agree with Juergen that this errata should be rejected and the issue
resolved in yang-next.
No IETF module should use this construct. It is easy to convert to an
equivalent form that is not under dispute.
Andy
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:40 AM Radek Krejci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dne 09. 04.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:39 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 09:19:00AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> > draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-26 has been in MISREF state for 754 days
> and
> > counting.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:58 AM Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-04-08, at 10:49, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >
> > One way to build a content-type from a media-type name is to add a
> parameter:
> >
> > application/yang-data+cbor; id=name
> > application/yang-data+cbor; id=sid
>
> Ha.
>
> Let’s
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:41 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:55:47PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > >> Ha.
> > >>
> > >> Let’s create a registry in yang-cbor for id= values (initially filled
> with id=name).
> > >> -sid can
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 6:05 AM Carsten Bormann wrote:
> It took us a long time to get the four CORECONF drafts in sync,
> but now we are ready for WGLC.
>
> This starts a working group last call for
> — draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12
> — draft-ietf-core-sid-11
> — draft-ietf-core-comi-09
> —
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:56 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> I propose option 1) and add an issue on yang-next (if not already
> there yet).
>
>
+1 (Noting that neither pyang or yangdump-pro handles this correctly right
now)
> /js
>
>
Andy
> On Fri,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM Martin Björklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree that a revision-label could be useful in an I-D but not to
> indicate
> > NBC changes (because it doesn't).
> > The rules need to be clear and simple wit
ion is not relevant for a work-in-progress.
We have seen many times in this WG where a NBC change was made
and then later undone. There is no value in tracking the module during
development.
Andy
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:46 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From: *'Andy
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:46 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From: *'Andy Bierman'
> *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
> *Cc: *Italo Busi , "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <
> jcla...@cisco.com
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> *From: *Italo Busi
> *Date: *Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , 'Andy Bierman' <
> a...@yumaworks.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)"
>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:39 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 2020, at 13:28, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just want to confirm that all the proposed documentation procedures
> > using new extensions are
Hi,
I just want to confirm that all the proposed documentation procedures
using new extensions are limited in scope to published modules only,
and not applied to unpublished modules (terms defined in RFC 8407).
IMO it would be harmful to module usability to assign revision-labels or
include
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:48 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Darn - poor choice of my first example. I meant this:
>
>
>
> 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 -> 2.0.0 -> 3.0.0 -> 1.2.0
>
This is the use-case I want to support.
Using revision-date alone, a tool and
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:37 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
> [replying to Reshad as well]
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> My impression is that Semver 2.0.0 works fine if you can always force
> clients to move to the latest version of the API whenever any bugfixes are
> made to the API (whether they are BC or NBC).
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:57 PM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Please see inline
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Björklund
> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:51 PM
> > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> > Cc: rrah...@cisco.com;
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:26 PM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
wrote:
>
>
> *From: *'Andy Bierman'
> *Date: *Monday, March 30, 2020 at 2:51 PM
> *To: *Martin Björklund
> *Cc: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , NetMod WG <
> netmod@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [ne
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Martin Björklund wrote:
> "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote:
> > On 2020-03-28, 4:41 AM, "Martin Björklund" wrote:
> >
> > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/45
> > >
> >
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:52 AM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2020. március 5., csütörtök 16:43
> *To:* Balázs Lengyel
> *Cc:* Benoit Claise ; NETMOD WG
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] Text in import to indicate whether a module
d
over in data nodes.
The same issue exists with the reference-stmt. We don't require (or
encourage) people to
place a reference to an external RFC on every leaf. The same judgement can
be used here.
> Regards Balazs
>
>
Andy
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of *And
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:45 AM Benoit Claise wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:23 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 09:52 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM Benoit Clai
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:23 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 09:52 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > Sorry to resurrect this old email thread.
> > > To me, it's an important p
orted multiple
times).
> Regards, Benoit
>
Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:44 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 04:49 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:11 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> > > O
ays a server choice.
I agree that mechanisms to bind ECA components to real scripting languages
has more promise than using YANG objects entirely, or creating a new
scripting language.
What do you think?
>
> Igor
>
>
Andy
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, 1:11:00 PM ES
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 5:57 PM Alexander Clemm wrote:
> In my view, an ECA model allows to define rules for events – conditions –
> actions, i.e. what actions to perform when an event occurs and a condition
> met. A smart filter filters an input stream, letting some objects pass but
>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:18 AM Schönwälder, Jürgen <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> Benoit,
>
> thanks for the clarification.
>
> I still believe that the approach taken is wrong. I doubt that network
> operators are interested in an assembly level approach for expressing
>
Hi,
I think the procedures we used to follow under Marshall Rose as AD work
better than current adoption calls. First we agreed on what problem(s) to
solve.
Then we agree on solutions. Without the first, it is hard to achieve the
second.
I would support working on a short requirements draft
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:01 AM Christian Hopps wrote:
> I was not approaching this discuss with this level of change in mind. How
> many years does it take to get a YANG model even one as simple as this
> completed?
>
>
I strongly agree.
Just because there are refinements to the YANG "string"
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:44 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 04:49 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:11 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 14:29 +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > > > If
* Types
> > > * Features
> > > * extensions
> > >
> > > * Ambiguous if
> > >
> > > * groupings are used
> > > * if the dependency is not formally defined by YANG, but functionally
> > > needed. (E.g. notification-capabilit
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:43 AM Schönwälder, Jürgen <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 11:39:31AM +, Jonathan wrote:
> > > Since is the only way to expose config false nodes for
> > > an NMDA server, it is kind of mandatory as soon as you have config
> >
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:00 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 07:52 +, Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:23:27AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > I don't see how YANG syntax defines this. If a module imports
> ietf-netconf-
> > > acm, it could be
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:08 AM Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Mahesh,
>
> I was asked by the group to include in each import statement whether the
> imported module is needed as import-only or as implemented. IMHO
> netmod/netconf group should agree on some standard text for model designers
> to
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:57 PM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
> See below BALAZS4.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2019. november 18., hétfő 7:12
> *To:* Balázs Lengyel
> *Cc:* Martin Bjorklund ; NetMod WG
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] comments on
> draft-ietf-netmo
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:01 AM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
> See below BALAZS3.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2019. november 18., hétfő 0:58
> *To:* Balázs Lengyel
> *Cc:* Martin Bjorklund ; NetMod WG
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] comments on
> draft-ietf-netmo
..@yumaworks.com; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-04
> >
> > Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > > See below!Balazs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: netmod On Behalf
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 6:19 AM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2019. november 7., csütörtök 23:58
> *To:* Martin Bjorklund
> *Cc:* Balázs Lengyel ; NetMod WG <
> netmod@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] comments on
> draf
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
> See below, Balazs
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2019. október 10., csütörtök 19:38
> *To:* Martin Bjorklund
> *Cc:* NetMod WG
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] comments on
> draft-
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:40 PM Balázs Lengyel
wrote:
> See below!Balazs
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 2019. október 10., csütörtök 17:34
> *To:* Martin Bjorklund
> *Cc:* NetMod WG
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] comments on
> draft-
Hi,
I have read draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05 and have the following
comments:
* sec 2. Specifying factory-reset content
This section uses SHALL (equivalent to MUST) to declare the implementation
details for
the server to load the factory-default content. This is not appropriate
for a
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:45 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> > Should I clarify my question?
> >
> > Jernej
> >
> > On 10/10/2019 10:36, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > there is at least one YANG 1.0 standard module that imports and uses
> > > groupings from a
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:08 PM Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> This concludes the netmod WG last call for
>
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext version 4...
>
> There was a modest amount of commentary generally positive, during the
> last call period with some requests for clarification (Qin wu) and some
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:34 AM Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:06 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have some mostly cosmetic comments on this draft.
>>
>> o "YANG" should be spelled "YANG". No
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:06 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some mostly cosmetic comments on this draft.
>
> o "YANG" should be spelled "YANG". Not Yang etc.
>
>
> o "NETCONF" should be spelled "NETCONF".
>
>
> o leaf-list module
>
> The type of this leaf-list is a
Hi,
The YANG looks valid.
yangdump-pro reports 1 warning:
Warning: Revision date in the future (2019-10-10)
ietf-notification-capabilit...@2019-10-10.yang:90.3: warning(1021):
revision date in the future
*** /home/andy/Desktop/ietf-notification-capabilit...@2019-10-10.yang
*** 0 Errors, 1
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:30 PM Qin Wu wrote:
>
>
> *发件人:* netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Andy Bierman
> *发送时间:* 2019年9月27日 11:42
> *收件人:* Schönwälder, Jürgen
> *抄送:* netmod@ietf.org
> *主题:* Re: [netmod] What's the problem with NMDA? was Re: 答复: 答复: Please
>
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:18 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
> Hi Chris, Mahesh,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Christian Hopps
> > Sent: 03 October 2019 20:50
> > To: Mahesh Jethanandani
> > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > ; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod]
gt;
I am not suggesting any changes to the module-tags module.
Just follow the procedure in RFC 8407, sec. 4.23.3.1
Andy
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:* netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Andy Bierman
> *发送时间:* 2019年10月4日 0:25
> *收件人:* Christian Hopps
> *抄送:* netmod@ietf.org
&
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Christian Hopps
> > Sent: 03 October 2019 16:16
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > Cc: Christian Hopps ; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:59 AM Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Christian Hopps
> >> Sent: 03 October 2019 16:16
> >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> >> Cc: Christian Hopps ;
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:40 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
> > Sent: 26 September 2019 19:35
> > To: Andy Bierman
> > Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:35 PM Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Authors, Contributors, WG,
>
> As part of WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?
>
> Please state either:
>
>
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:35 AM Schönwälder, Jürgen <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:44:01AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> > The IETF has completely punted the problem of converting data for a
> > configuration datastore to the
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:14 AM tom petch wrote:
> Inline
>
> Tom Petch
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andy Bierman"
> To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 3:33 PM
>
> On Thu,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:32 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund
> > Sent: 26 September 2019 08:45
> > To: lho...@nic.cz
> > Cc: yang...@huawei.com; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 7:54 PM Qin Wu wrote:
> *发件人:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
> *发送时间:* 2019年9月26日 0:00
> *收件人:* Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> *抄送:* Qin Wu ; Fengchong (frank) <
> frank.fengch...@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org; Yangang
> *主题:* Re:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:37 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I saw some recent questions about 'when' statements. I had another one
> related to evaluating 'when' statements that involve leafs that don't
> currently have a value at all.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:59 AM Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:44 AM Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
> jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Processing order should not matter. The evaluation of the 'when'
>> statement should be do
n use a 'must' statement.
>
>
>
+1
YANG clearly defines "must" and "when" with different behavior.
A server that does not implement the auto-delete aspects of when-stmt is
not compliant to the RFC.
> Jason
>
Andy
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of
ormation contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
> total or partial
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
> intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender by
> phone or email
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
> intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender by
> phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
>
>
> *发件人:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yum
Hi,
None of the operations that accept or return datastore contents expose the
datastore objects
in the RPC parameters. They are always anyxml or anydata. This means that
there are no descendant data nodes defined at all according to the RPC
operation
and therefore the constraints on those nodes
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:08 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
> Thank you for your review. Comments below.
>
> Kent // as co-author
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position
Petch
>
>
Andy
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kent Watsen"
> To: "RFC Errata System"
> Cc: "Andy Bierman" ; "Ignas Bagdonas"
> ; "Warren Kumari" ; "Joel
> Jaeggli" ; "Lou Berger" ; "
>
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
> Sent: 07 August 2019 08:39
> To: Andy Bierman ; Fengchong (frank) <
> frank.fengch...@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org; Zhangxiaoping (C) <
> zhang.xiaop...@huawei.com>; liuzhiying
>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:49 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> "Fengchong (frank)" writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I encounter a question about 'when', when I implement yang model
> associated when condition.
> >
> > Yang model:
> >
> > leaf password-type {
> >type enumeration {
> > enum null;
ESTCONF/YANG document set in
> future.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 24 July 2019 14:32
> *To:* Kent Watsen
> *Cc:* netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] YANG next
>
>
>
>
>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to change? ;-)
>
> I am actually fine with not doing any changes to YANG 1.1 at all, except
> perhaps
> bug fixes. This doesn't necessarily mean closing the NETMOD WG, it would
>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:52 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:00:29PM -0400, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> This problem is actually not limited to YANG itself - people are
> reporting
> >> problems with the transition to NMDA.
> >>
>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:00 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 09:22 -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this morning I attended the side meeting
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this morning I attended the side meeting "Next Step of IETF YANG". I was
> somewhat misled into thinking that it would be about future evolution of
> YANG
> the language, which was not the case at all. However, my personal
>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:24 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> Balázs,
>
> I am not sure these belongs to the data types collection. If these
> annotations are a per datastore properties or per configuration
> datastore properties (I am not sure these
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:09 AM Fengchong (frank) <
frank.fengch...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> I think IETF solution: migrate to NMDA is unrealistic. The cost of
> migration to NMDA is too expensive, If the entire industry migrates to
> NMDA, the time will be long.
> This will delay
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:59 PM Mahesh Jethanandani
wrote:
> This errata should be rejected for the following reason.
>
>
This errata should be rejected because the Errata process cannot be used to
update a module.
The normal WG document process needs to be used instead.
A new revision of the
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:59 PM Fengchong (frank) <
frank.fengch...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Can you clarify this question?
>
>
>
Since state-last-changed seems to cover state data changing, last-change
seems to apply to
the operational value of the config=true nodes in the
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michal Vaško wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> I think there is a problem in the RFC because using only allowed steps I
> got invalid data from initially valid data. That cannot be correct.
>
>
No. See sec. 7.5.7
If a non-presence container does not have any child nodes,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:40 AM Italo Busi wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> My understanding is that the running DS contains only the list entries
> configured by the client and therefore there is no key collision (the key
> values are all assigned by the client)
>
> The issue is that the operational DS
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:15 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> I think this does not work:
>
> [...] For operation,it can be used to copy
> the factory default content to another datastore, however the
> content of the datastore is not
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 09:43:44AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:20 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrot
301 - 400 of 1103 matches
Mail list logo
