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

Hi, On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Kent, > Yeah - I realize that I'm jumping ahead of where we are. I'm a bit > worried that we're making forward looking assumptions that we'll be able to > stick to those constraints that

Re: [netmod] ietf-access-control-l...@2017-10-03.yang : Can access-lists use a grouping?

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:26 AM, M. Ranganathan <mra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 AM, M. Ranganathan <mra...@gmail.com> wrote: &

Re: [netmod] ietf-access-control-l...@2017-10-03.yang : Can access-lists use a grouping?

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > Hi Rob, Mahesh, > > Thanks for reading. > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Ranga, >> >> Presumably another choice would to keep ACLs defined in one place (i.e. >> no

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

Hi, I have read this draft a few times. I have not implemented the draft but it seems reasonably constrained. here are some comments. Sec 1: seems like a lot of background on YANG and then some explanation of the solution. The problem statement is never really explained. Some discussion of

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

Hi, So a server will be required to guess the correct datastore until it finds the right one that matches the action instance? 10 candidate The server will guess the datastore in some

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > On 10/31/2017 10:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > ... > >> The system side effects are irrelevant, but both the same for rpc and >> action. >> &

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Randy Presuhn < > > randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > The

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02.txt one or many

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > On 10/27/2017 01:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Why do we come up with such rules in the first place? It really > > depends on the modules and their relationship and it is the > > responsibility of the WG, the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02.txt size

Hi, I do not agree that 6087bis should contain every micro-managed detail that could possibly pertain to YANG, such as what section the YANG diagram belongs in, or what exact pyang settings should be used in every possible usage scenario. It seems obvious that a 36 page tree diagram for a 47

Re: [netmod] Action and RPC statements [was Re: augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > On 10/26/2017 10:44 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi , >> >> Separating out the issue regarding which datastore action and RPC apply >> to, we propose the following NEW text to the datastores

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com > wrote: > On 10/24/2017 03:42 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > >> >> Although the instance-identifier is problematic, it is rarely used at all, >> let alone using it as a list key.

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > I think NMDA is creating much more complexity and disruption than is > > required. > > The original issue was the OpenConfig-style conf

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > I think NMDA is creating much more complexity and disruption than is > > required. > > The original issue was the OpenConfig-style conf

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 25/10/2017 16:54, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >&

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

efore a module MAY appear in multiple module-sets, but it MUST NOT be different. The exact same revision, features, and deviations MUST be present in each instance. Andy > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:21:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Juergen Schoe

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

theme has been to declare things that are possible in pre-NMDA but not supported in post-NMDA to be not useful, so this can be left to vendors I guess. > Thanks, > Rob > > > Andy > On 18/10/2017 23:16, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Juergen

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com > wrote: > On 10/24/2017 03:42 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Vladimir Vassilev < >> vladi...@transpacket.com <mailto:vladi...@transpacket.com>

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Dear all, &g

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com&g

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

-- > > > You may review the report below and at: > > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5157 > > > > > > -- > > > Type: Technical > > > Reported by: Andy Bierman <a...@yu

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

eview the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5157 >> >> -- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> >> >> Section: 14 >> >> Original Text >> - >

Re: [netmod] XPath node type tests

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Lada, > > Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. > > > On 20/10/2017 16:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Hi Rob, >> >> Robert Wilton writes: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> XPATH 1.0 defines the following

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 01:26:30PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:56:42PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface" { > > > &

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:56:42PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface" { > > > &

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi, I support BCP status. This is consistent with RFC 4181, which RFC 6087 was modeled after. Andy On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Benoit, et al., > > > > As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I > know that Lou

Re: [netmod] augment YANG 1.0 with YANG 1.1 OK?

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > RFC 7950 has no text at all that addresses this specific point: > > > > module if-aug { > > yang-version

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

Hi, It would change the schema node for an object if it was wrapped it in a choice. This affects augment and deviation statements that reference the old schema node. The 'uses' node is a special case since it never appears in a schema node identifier. Andy On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Kent

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:15 AM, JOEY BOYD wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone have thoughts on this? > The choice and case nodes are schema nodes so they are never an issue for data tree XPath such as must/when. The change works in your example because a leaf cannot be

Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the issue "Is it allowed to violate uniqueness of key values?", > https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/10 > > We have discussed this further, and would like to extend the text in the > draft

Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]

probably be best illustrated with an > > > updated draft revision. > > > > > > For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119 > > > language does not particularly aid readability in this architecture > > > document. > > > &g

Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]

> > NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?) by adding RFC 2119 > > > text to the document, which will probably be best illustrated with an > > > updated draft revision. > > > > > > For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119 > > >

Re: [netmod] vs

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:17:46PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > > No. I do not agree that the MUST in RFC 7950 can be removed. > > > >

Re: [netmod] vs [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:17:46PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > No. I do not agree that the MUST in RFC 7950 can be removed. > > > I do not agree the architecture should update YANG

Re: [netmod] vs [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 18/09/2017 15:21, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> At the moment, NMDA

Re: [netmod] vs [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]

The contents of is also related to the 'config true' >subset of , and hence a client can determine to what >extent the intended configuration is currently applied by checking >whether the contents of also appears in . > > does not persist across reboots; its relati

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 02:56:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready > > for standardization. > > OK.

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC > 7950

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net> wrote: > Andy Bierman writes: > >But this means if any clients use the disable-node feature then all > clients > >need to know about the feature as well, or they will mistake these nodes > >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: > "t.petch" writes: > >Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the course > >of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive', > >sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

Hi, I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC 7950. I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a standards track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. Andy

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 15/09/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > So are you saying the NMDA transition strategy should be ignored? > > My personal preference for the routing modules would

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, So are you saying the NMDA transition strategy should be ignored? What is the problem with deprecated nodes? Why aren't you following your own transition strategy? Andy On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 15/09/2017 15:52, Acee Lindem (acee)

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with Balazs that system-created nodes in running are quite > common and > > > the vendors doing it have no intention of changing it. > > > > Of course, what else were they going to do pre-NMDA…and

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 14/09/2017 16:35, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > See below! > On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi Balazs, > > Thanks for your review. Comments inline. > > Balazs Lengyel

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

Hi, Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to remember. The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little symbols to remember them all. Andy On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Joe Clarke wrote: > I've been hacking on pyang, and

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, There are many YANG guidelines that are for promoting a consistent structure for all IETF modules. YANG is just more source code. Each organization can have different coding guidelines, yet they can all use the same compiler. I should explain the use-case for identifying NMDA vs.

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 11:17:10AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > On 07/09/2017 22:23, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

gt; wrote: > > >> > > >> On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > >>> Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <k

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general > >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. Particularly, > >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the

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

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 05/09/2017 19:00, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 06:17:09PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: >> >>> I believe that tools intended for general use should follow the YANG spec literally.

Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:50:03PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I still don't know what it means to define hierarchical data

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > >> I guess the NMDA transition plan to move the child nodes to a > config=true > >> node > >> name /restconf that has only config=false nodes in it. This seems quite > >> disruptive > >> and not a productive use of

Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > >> I still don't know what it means to define hierarchical data and say the > >> parent is deprecated but not the descendant nodes. > > > > It is odd but can happen anyway. A current augmentation of something > >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Benoit Claise wrote: > > Kent, > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing > > > RFCs to align them with NMDA. The first batch have been

Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:44:29AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Blind cut-and-paste is not a good design goal. > > > > Definitions that stand on the

Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:40:23PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > With all the deprecating of "-state" trees going on these days, > > the 'status' statement is getting lots of use. > > >

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

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 04/09/2017 16:55, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> On 02/09/2017 17:4

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> > wrote: > > [Re: moving the definition of rc:yang-data to a new docum

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

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 02/09/2017 17:46, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >> O

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

Hi, The use-cases for groupings/uses and augment are not identical. Alternative NMDA Approach: I don't see a big difference between defining YANG for an artifact vs. defining some YANG for a special-purpose datastore. There is nothing about the YANG data that is different. There are only

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

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 10:39:57AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > This is not an effort to change or bifurcate the YANG 1.1. It is simply > to > > RECOMMEND a proper subset of XSD

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > I am not sure any new construct is needed at all. > > > The current definition covers it. > > > > > > Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive > nor conducive to downstream

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > I'd like to start a discussion about adopting this draft...or something > like it (see below). > > The primary driver for wanting to expedite this draft is that it is being > discussed as a required aspect of a chartered

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

Hi, The burden this would place on YANG writers would be excessive. We learned in SNMP-land about CLRs (clever little rules) and how they need to be avoided. We learned that special-casing and sub-setting technology has its own costs, which are usually more than the problem they solved (e.g.,

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

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:48:19PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > On 30/08/2017 11:29, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:16:30AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:

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

Hi, I agree with Juergen that these proposed guidelines are not a good idea. The priority order for YANG is (1) readers (2) writers and (3) toolmakers. It seems trivial for group (3) to convert the XSD pattern to some other format. It seems difficult to train all the people in groups (1) and (2)

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > >> I know that we tend to be sloppy in meetings and often in emails but > >> in written RFCs (specifications) I would personally prefer to use a > >> single term. > > > > So change it in the RD draft to the term we

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:24:17AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > Except that we never use that term. > > It is always called operational datastore when we

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > On 8/28/2017 12:24 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > 4.23.1. Combining Operational State and Configuration Data > > > > > >If possible, operational s

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 06:08:28PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here is the proposed rewrite of 4.23. > > I changed a few details in

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

ample: Create a Temporary NMDA Module: Create a new module that contains the top-level operational state data nodes that would have been available before they were combined with configuration data nodes (to be NMDA compliant). module example-foo-state { namespace "urn:e

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > > On 8/25/17, 2:21 PM, "Andy Bierman" <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > Obviously NMDA cannot be used for objects where the configuration

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

Hi, I think there should be text about admin-state/oper-state objects. It is fairly common that the oper-state enums will differ from the admin-state enums. The only linkage between these objects is description-stmt text. Not only does NMDA ignore this linkage problem, it acutally makes it

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On 8/23/2017 6:01 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > If there is a wiki it can be mentioned in 6087bis, and new issues can > > go to the wiki. > > > > That's an interesting idea, i.e., rep

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > > On 8/23/2017 5:27 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > This work item is over 3 1/2 years old already. > > The feature-creep just doesn't end. > > This is a hugely valid point. This was the major

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > My view is wikis are fine for folks "in the know" but RFCs are good for > the wide distribution of interoperability standards and information > related to their implementation. > > It seems to me that this is a case of the

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Identities vs enums

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 07:02:04PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > All, > > In the context iana-routing-types.yang, we’ve been having a discussion > of the merits of identities vs enums.

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

Hi, I think Lou's text is a good start for the replacement text. We should finish the details and finish this document. Ongoing tips and guidelines should go on a wiki. The IETF cannot declare an official start and stop date for NMDA transition. The community outside the NETMOD WG has yet to

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

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > > On 08/08/2017 10:15 AM, Ivory, William wrote: > >> >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> We have one YANG file that represents multiple components in the system. >> Currently they are bundled together, so having a single YANG

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:06:23AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > So you are saying there is no such thing as an NMDA-compliant server. > > There are prot

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:49:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:18:10AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:59:58AM +, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - > BE/Antwerp) wrote: > > > > Just to get confirmation on my assumptions: > > > > In section 4.7.3 the origin metadata does not

Re: [netmod] accessible tree for rpcs?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:11:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > The server will NEVER use these constraints. It does not run XPath > > validation on its own out

Re: [netmod] accessible tree for rpcs?

Hi Kent, I objected to this expansion of XPath context when YANG 1.1 was being developed. Then I realized the YANG constraints are totally worthless so no reason to do anything about it. The server will NEVER use these constraints. It does not run XPath validation on its own output. The client

Re: [netmod] datastore conformance

Hi, I am aware how YANG identities work. Let the market decide. Good enough. Andy On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net> wrote: > Andy Bierman writes: > >The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations do not > actually &g

Re: [netmod] datastore conformance

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:01:29PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > The YANG identityref allows any identity that is derived from the > > same base. You keep talk

Re: [netmod] datastore conformance

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > I am still concerned that the datastore conformance requirements are > > > under-specified and too server-centric. > > > > Okay. > > > > > > > The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations >

[netmod] datastore conformance

Hi, I am still concerned that the datastore conformance requirements are under-specified and too server-centric. The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations do not ac tually require the "real" datastore identities to be used by a server. The server implementor has the

Re: [netmod] Notification in Yang Modules

Hi, The YANG notification-stmt is for defining your own event messages. This can be used with 5277 or 5277bis notification delivery mechanisms. The choice of mandatory or optional (via if-feature) is model-specific. If the module functionality related to the notification is optional, the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

draft will progress and > also believe > > that the text could be written more helpfully for the 6087bis audience. > > > > Would it help if one of the nmda-guidelines authors wrote the section for > you? > > > > Thanks, > > Kent // co-chair > > >

[netmod] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00.txt

draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00.txt To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : YANG Data Extensions Author : Andy Bierman Filename: draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-

Re: [netmod] Small comment on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the > IETF. > > > > Title : Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG > Data Model Documents

Re: [netmod] Defining configuraiton: was I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:03:21AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > We found that trying to define what "configuration is, or isn't", is > hard, > > but still regard having a definition is

Re: [netmod] Defining configuraiton: was I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I was going to just watch this, but I can't. > > To call protocol negotiated values "configuration" is to create a usage > which will confuse MANY people. Even worse, configuring protocol learned > values is liable

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Hi, I rewrote 6.23 and it points at the NMDA guidelines. The drafts will get published together so the references will be to RFCs, not I-Ds. That is usually what is meant by the comment below I think > I don't expect the guidelines doc is going to progress independently. Agreed. Andy On

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > > > Guidelines for > > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. > > I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc.

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the > IETF. > > Title : Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG > Data Model Documents > Author : Andy Bierman >

Re: [netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

The draft should make it clear that this change is being made. Before there was no way to access the operational value. Now there is only oerational value and no way to access the configured value. Andy On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net> wrote: > And

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >