Re: [netmod] module names starting with underscore

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > One of our customers wants to introduce module names starting with > underscores. As far as I know it is not forbidden even if unusual. Do you > see any problems with it or do you know about any tools that would have > problems

Re: [netmod] false() vs 'false' in 'when' statements

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" wrote: > > > > Thanks W

Re: [netmod] false() vs 'false' in 'when' statements

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" wrote: > > Thanks William. > > Please see below. > > Regards, > > Jason > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ivory, William > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:27 AM > > > To:

Re: [netmod] 6087bis - Security Considerations template

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:50 AM, 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 data nodes and their > sensitivity/vulnerability:

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 24/07/2018 16:11, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 05:47:45PM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > There are actual instances where small perhaps non-disruptive but > > incompatible changes are required. The example given

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 23/07/2018 15:08, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> >> >> On 23/07/2018 12:54, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> >>

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 23/07/2018 12:54, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Chris, Andy, >> >> >> On 21/07/2018 17:00, Christian Hopps wrote: >>

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

hese to get closer to the >> intention which I believe is to allow for smoother transition from one >> module to the next while making incompatible but mostly non-impacting >> changes. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> >> Andy Bierman wr

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

Hi, A bit ironic... We should change the name of an acronym that has been in place since 1988 in order to guard against instability. Andy On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) < acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi Benoit, et al, > I couldn't agree more. The IETF has

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

h needed for YANG? It is possible to make a standard so complicated that nobody implements it. Thanks, > Chris. > > Andy > Andy Bierman writes: > > Hi, >> >> I strongly object to requirement 3.1: >> >> >> 3.1 The solution MUST provide

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 3:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 01:48:37AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > But you can tell the 2 subtrees apart this way. > > If I change /foo from a container to a li

Re: [netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I strongly object to requirement 3.1: > > > > > > 3.1 The solut

[netmod] backward compatibility requirements in draft-verdt-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-00

Hi, I strongly object to requirement 3.1: 3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to support existing clients in a backward compatible way. This is not what servers do today at all. They provide only one version of an implemented module, as specified in

[netmod] review CORE WG YANG drafts

Hi, YANG experts: please review these 2 drafts and post comments to the CORE WG mailing list: CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANGdraft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-06 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-06 YANG Schema Item iDentifier (SID)draft-ietf-core-sid-04

[netmod] Abusing YANG extensions

Hi, The discussion about yang-data is stuck because the NETMOD WG does not understand or does not agree on what it means to abuse a YANG extension and use it improperly. If a tool implementing a standard cannot do so without implementing certain extensions, then those extensions are not

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 16:47 +0200, Juergen Sch

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 15:55 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 04:36:01PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > Martin Bjorklund

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > People want to use YANG to define the schema for an XML or JSON > > > representation of a stand-alone document. > > > > Agreed > > > > > > > The only data needed must

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I do not understand the need for a yang-data structure that > represents > > > d

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:18:38PM +0200, Robert Varga wrote: > > On 23/04/18 18:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > Some people will say that the cost of a new language version is high. >

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

> > > > > I do not understand the need for a yang-data structure that represents > data > > that can be instantiated anywhere and everywhere. > > AFAIK noone is proposing that. > > > I do not want to break > > existing tools that expect sibling data nodes in the same module > namespace > > to

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:28 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com&

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Andy B

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> > wrote: > > > > > I like Andy's

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

xtension only applies to top-level yang-data definitions. However, my preference is to only standardize top-level yang-data. I do not see any need for the other form since all functionality can be achieved with a grouping and a proprietary YANG extension. Kent // contributor > Andy >

[netmod] comments on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-01

Hi, Here are my comments for this draft. I hope it can be completely quickly. * sec 3.2: Vendor Tags however, it is recommended that the vendor consider including extra identification in the tag name to avoid collisions (e.g., vendor:super-duper-company:...). - Suggest standard

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 16/04/2018 17:07, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Don't groupings have a somewhat similar co

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

ever this hack is called. Every tool that implements yang-data has to be able to interpret a yang-data statement exactly the same way. If you want to reinvent XSD substitutionGroup, then do it right. > Thanks, > Rob > > Andy > > On 16/04/2018 15:36, Andy Bierman wrote: &

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Joe Clarke wrote: > On 4/16/18 08:56, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > While preparing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-02, it turned out that > > it is not clear what, if any, restrictions should be enforced for > > yang-data structures.

Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

Hi, I am strongly opposed to this change because it breaks the rule in YANG 1.1 that there cannot be 2 sibling nodes defined in the same module namespace. IMO since any yang-data nodes are ALLOWED to be used at the top-level, then these top-level nodes cannot have conflicting names. It is very

Re: [netmod] An abundant amount of IANA if types...

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > All of these suggested solutions seem OK if one were looking for the most > > disruptive > > way to solve the p

Re: [netmod] An abundant amount of IANA if types...

tance false' to allow for interfaces that are not yet configured. Andy On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > All of these suggested solutions seem OK if one were looking for the most > disruptive > way to solve the problem.

Re: [netmod] An abundant amount of IANA if types...

Hi, All of these suggested solutions seem OK if one were looking for the most disruptive way to solve the problem. Tossing iana-if-types and starting over would achieve that result. First, this is a server capabilities problem, so it is related to the implementation, not the schema. Second,

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

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:22:26PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:08:32PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I don't rea

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

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote: > Thanks for your quick response! I have some additional comments inline. > > On 3/8/18 2:00 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > >> -

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

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:33 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

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

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >&

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

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [netmod] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your review, Stephen! > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Stephen Farrell > wrote: > > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell > > Review result: Ready > > > > > > I reviewed

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis Part 2

Hi, I think draft-18 addresses all these issues. A guideline about key leaf order has also been added. Andy On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > Here is the part 2 of the AD review, from section 4.21 on. > > Regarding the part 1, thanks

Re: [netmod] WG: Adoption Poll: draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-01

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > All, > > The adoption call for this document closed on Feb 8th. > > Authors, > > Please repost your document with only the 'filename' and date updated as > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-00. Please discuss on list any

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:03:02AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > The reason the deviation is a list is because it has a name and revision. > > Or it did until

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 05:03:32PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > 1) module "feature" in YANG library is a leaf-list, but currently it is a > > list in YANG libary bis. I suspect that

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Alexander Clemm wrote: > My proposal is to add this to the YANG data model. I think this logically > belongs to YANG library which is why I would like to see it there. I also > think it will be useful to many implementations. All,

Re: [netmod] LL review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 15:37 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:26:31PM +0100, Ladislav

Re: [netmod] LL review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:26:31PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > Sec. 1 - YANG library stability > > > > > > > > The text basically says that the YANG library information

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

- Original Message - > From: "Phil Shafer" <p...@juniper.net> > To: "Andy Bierman" <a...@yumaworks.com> > Cc: "NETMOD Working Group" <netmod@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:55:53AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > Then remove the text that says an error is sent if with-defaults > attempted > > on

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

> > Who needs all this to manage a network? > > I sometimes get comments from people about NETCONF defaults, like "You think this is a standard? Why does a vendor get to decide what is a default leaf?" CoMI has taken a different approach. Every server MUST implement "trim" mode and nothing

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:03:49PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > 2) The operation returns all values in use. > > > > T

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

This might be useful granularity for something. A vendor might also create their own protocol mechanisms to utilize the standard tag values and ignoring the rest of this draft. > /martin > > Andy > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/02/2018 14:2

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

appears that text needs to be added to explain the behavior w.r.t. > operational datastore. If everyone agrees, authors, can you propose the > text that needs to be updated. > > Thanks. > > Andy > On Feb 7, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: >

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

wrote: > Andy Bierman writes: > >The draft avoids discussion of any useful operations based on tags. > > Nor does it really clearly say "what" is being tagged. The absract > talks about "used to help classify and organize modules", but the > Introduction lacks

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 07/02/2018 14:23, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> On 07/02/2018 02:3

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:58 AM, t.petch wrote: > Andy > > If an RFC is mentioned in a Description clause, should it also appear in > the related Reference clause? > yes -- there are many places in 6087bis that mention the reference-stmt e.g.: If the notification

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 07/02/2018 02:33, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani < > mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For folks that p

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

t;> I do have one additional thought below on > >>>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores > section 5.3 default handling process. See in-line... > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, this document is with the RFC editor now. I do not think it needs > >&

Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

Hi, support starting this work. The draft avoids discussion of any useful operations based on tags. Setting and clearing tags is fine, but what about ? What about NACM rules based on tags? If protocol operations using tags are out of scope, then the draft should say that. (And don't forget NMDA

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani < mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > WG, > > The authors of rfc7895bis have indicated that they believe the document is > ready for LC[1]. > > This starts a two week LC on the draft >

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:35:33PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have some questions about these drafts. > > > > 1)

Re: [netmod] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

Hi, I have some questions about these drafts. 1) what if datastore set to "conventional"? There are many places where a datastore-ref type is used. However, "conventional" is valid for base "datastore", even though it is ambiguous as a datastore selector. 2) origin filter is limited

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Hi, On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in > which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library update > (posted November 2nd). So the document is in a

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-01

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Andy On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > As part of the preparation for WG adoption: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? > > Please

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis shepherd writeup issues

Hi, I posted draft-16 which has all changes below except the unused reference for RFC 5378. The idnits tool is wrong. It ignores usage in an appendix. Andy On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > 1) before I forget, could you please confirm

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis shepherd writeup issues

Hi, I am unaware of any IPR for the rfc6087bis draft Andy On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > 1) before I forget, could you please confirm one more time (the last time > being in 2016, sheesh!) that you are unaware of any IPR that needs

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > On 08/01/2018 19:45, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:55 AM

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

o the YANG constraints defined within config=false data nodes does not change. To do otherwise does not make sense. E.g. "when" conditions that add ethernet counters only when the interface type is ethernetCsmacd. Why would it be OK for the server to ignore that when-stmt and add ethe

[netmod] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01

Reviewer: Andy Bierman Review result: Ready This module appears to follow all NMDA transition guidelines. There are no YANG compiler errors or warnings. ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

Hi, It should be clear somehow that server requirements to provide config=false data that is valid according to the YANG definitions is not affected by NMDA. That is not being taken away. The ability to validate operational values of configuration data has never been provided, and therefore is

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

Hi, On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > This version addresses the WGLC comments from Andy and Lou, as > discussed on the list. > > I have reviewed draft-08. The behavior and server capability reporting for the RFC 6241 datastores should remain

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 11/12/2017 20:55, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 08/12/2017 18

Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi Lou, > > Lou Berger wrote: > > Hi, > > These comments are based on my Shepherd review of this document and > > should be addressed as part of addressing any LC comments: > > > > 1)

Re: [netmod] Augmentation to Groupings

Hi, I do not want YANG to have augment for groupings because there is no way to control all possible uses-stmts and make sure the augmentation is only used where intended. This seems no different than OO code. A new class name is required for the derived class. In YANG a new grouping is required

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

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > On 12/18/2017 04:01 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > > <mailto

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

>>>> This version addresses the WGLC comments received. Specifically, I > > >>>>> have added ietf-hardware-state, a config false version of > > >>>>> ietf-hardware for non-NMDA implementations, in an Appendix. Please > > >>>>> re

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/12/2017 18:01, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > A library per datastore sounds too complicated. > I prefer the proposal that was made at the IETF meeting that had >

Re: [netmod] YANG library structure

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > There has been quite a lot of discussion about the YANG library > data model on the list. The authors of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis > have tried to understand all arguments in the discussion, and provide > a

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Hi, These changes are OK with me. Andy On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > Hi, > > Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up): > > I have created two wikis off of > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, one for 6087bis >

Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Hi, I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been addressed. This might be the most important sentence in the draft: sec. 5.3 The datastore schema for MUST be a superset of the combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except that YANG

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:34 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > if we have > > > > > > augment "/target/node" { > > > when "..."; > > > ... > > > } > > > > > >

Re: [netmod] evaluation of "when" under NMDA

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:34 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > >

Re: [netmod] Use feature to advertise pre-nmda-support {was: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 ]

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > On 12/1/2017 3:37 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.21.2 >> >> o "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits >>

Re: [netmod] Use feature to advertise pre-nmda-support {was: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 ]

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.21.2 > >o "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits > new/continued implementation in order to foster interoperability >

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Andy On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:06 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

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 16/11/2017 02:29, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > The per-datastore feature aspect of NMDA is a new and significant change > to YANG. > > | | +--ro featu

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Alternative YANG library structure for 7895bis

Hi, The per-datastore feature aspect of NMDA is a new and significant change to YANG. | | +--ro feature* [name] | | | +--ro nameyang:yang-identifier | | | +--ro not-implemented-in* | | | -> /yang-library/datastore/name YANG does not define feature

Re: [netmod] ietf-yang-library edit

ng to > potentially import multiple revisions. > > Thanks, > Rob > > > regards Balazs > > On 2017-11-15 10:33, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > The ietf-yang-library module relies on "yang-identifier", which was added > to the 2nd > versi

[netmod] ietf-yang-library edit

Hi, The ietf-yang-library module relies on "yang-identifier", which was added to the 2nd version of the ietf-yang-types. It does not compile unless that version is used. OLD: import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; } NEW: import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang;

Re: [netmod] Comment on draft-clacla-netmod-yang-model-update-02

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:51:22AM +0800, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > >Whenever a client OSS implements some higher level logic for a network > >function, something that can not be

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

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 08:34 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.c

Re: [netmod] rfc7223bis Backward compatibility in YANG - BAD !!!

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > In draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 I read > > The "/interfaces-state" subtree with "config false" data nodes is >deprecated. ... > >Servers that do not implement NMDA, or that wish to support

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

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Robert Wilton writes: > > >> > >>> 2. Sec 1. Introduction, page 4, paragraph starting "2. > >>> Implementation-time ...". This section states that it is a stable as > >>> YANG library, and hence cannot

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

ren. Additionally, for an RPC, the root node also has the node representing the RPC operation being defined as a child. The node representing the operation being defined has the operation's output parameters as children. > /martin > > > Andy > > > Andy Bierm

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

ew name. > Thanks, > Phil > Andy > > > Andy Bierman writes: > >So a server will be required to guess the correct datastore until it > >finds the right one that matches the action instance? > > > > > > > >

Re: [netmod] revised-datastores and commonality of schemas

are valid YANG and there is no problem at all with validation. It is very useful that 'anydata' is opaque to YANG validation. > > > Jason > Andy > > > *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 02, 2017 16:58 > *To:* Sterne, Jaso

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >