Re: [netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

> > > > > > > Sec 5.1 of the RD draft does not mention config=true nodes. > > The operational state datastore's schema is all config true and all > config false nodes. > > This actually changes the behavior of YANG XPath. container foo { leaf A { type int8; } leaf B {

Re: [netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com

Re: [netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > Andy, >

Re: [netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

container stats { config false; when "different condition"; } } Forcing the augmenting node to be the XPath context node impacts the possible expressions. I think the RD draft should make all this clear. /js > Andy > > On Wed, Jun 14, 201

[netmod] XPath questions about revised datastores

Hi, I don't know if getting rid of /foo-state is such a great idea, especially wrt/ counters and other objects that are not related to intended config vs. applied config. Q1) how does a client know the difference between an auto-generated foo-state.yang and a real foo-state.yang? Seem like a

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > >> On F

Re: [netmod] Question on intefaces-state model

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 10:55:20AM +, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - > BE/Antwerp) wrote: > > > > We have a question regarding the statistics container as defined in the > > interfaces-state

Re: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

Hi, I am trying to complete rfc6087bis. It has been held up waiting for this draft. It is not clear to me how sec. 6.23 (Operational Data) needs to change. Should the whole section be replaced by an informative reference to this new draft? Andy On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Claise

Re: [netmod] Output of /netconf-state/schemas in RFC 6022

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Rohit R Ranade wrote: > Hi All, > > > > In RFC 6022 : > > > > *2.1.3. The /netconf-state/schemas Subtree* > > > >The list of *supported schema* for the NETCONF server. > this usage is general meaning all modules used by the server

[netmod] tree diagrams for augment

Hi, Below is part of 1 tree diagram from yang-push-06. The problem is that is shows the entire RPC, and gives no indication at all that this module only defines augmentations, or which nodes in the tree diagram will be found here. Andy rpcs: +---x establish-subscription | +---w

Re: [netmod] RFC7952 annotation to identify leaf encryption/hashing format

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > RFC 7952 says: > >4. Annotations sent by a server should not break clients that don't >support them. > > If the client is expected to understand which hash function has been > used

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-05.txt

Hi, I am glad you got rid of the when-stmt. The parent-reference is defined as an xpath1.0 string, but the example in sec A.3 is just the string "ietf-interfaces" not an XPath expression at all. Is this what you meant? Should it be "/ietf-interfaces:ietf-interfaces"? Also open issue B.3 says

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-02.txt

Hi, I think the remnant configuration text needs clarification. I thought the whole point of the operational datastore for config=true nodes was to provide the intended and applied values using the exact same instance-identifier. NC/RC/YANG does not allow the old operational value and new

Re: [netmod] hi Alex, Eric and design team guys some comments for YANG-push and subscribed-notifications, please help to confirm

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > Hi Walker, > > > > Thanks very much for the comments. Some thoughts in-line. > > > > *From:* Zhengguangying (Walker), May 2, 2017 9:25 AM > > Hi Alex, Eric and all, > > > >I reviewed the latest Draft and have some

[netmod] comments on tree diagrams draft

Hi, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-00 The introduction in this draft does not really reflect the goals that need to be addressed. Perhaps: sec 1, para 1: OLD: This document provides the syntax used in YANG Tree Diagrams. It is expected that

Re: [netmod] Query on Announcing Conformance Information in the Message

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Is there a typo in your capability line? s/netocnf/netconf/ > > Is your server also advertising jnx-ietf-netocnf-monitoring-dev in its > hello message? > > > > BTW, be aware that servers supporting RFC7950 no longer have

Re: [netmod] Query on Announcing Conformance Information in the Message

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Dhirendra Trivedi wrote: > Hi All, > > > > We had requirement of implementing ietf-netconf-monitoring YANG model > > and we did it but partially. Now we need to advertise the deviation module > > in the netconf server capability. > > I

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 13/04/2017 17:08, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> >> > On 13 Apr

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 13 Apr 2017, at 18:08, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wro

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:34, t.petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andy Bierman" <a...@yumaworks.com> > &

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Alexander Clemm wrote: > I do have a question re: the rationale that is given in the document: " > Today's Common practice is include the definition of the syntax used to > represent a YANG module in every document that provides a

[netmod] YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-04

Overall: The document is well-written and almost ready for publication Comments: 1) No examples or guidance for "encaps-type" The document does not really define the standards value for this empty choice. There are no examples showing its use. More work is needed for this part of the module.

Re: [netmod] file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang" or file "ietf-foo.yang"

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > On 24/03/2017 08:09, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > On 3/24/2017 2:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > >> Hi Benoit, > > >> > > >> Section 4.2 of rfc6187bis says: > > >> > > >>

Re: [netmod] uses and augment

Hi, I think the reason this was rejected is because you cannot control which "uses" of the grouping should get the augmenting nodes. They all get the nodes. There is no way for the uses-stmt to "opt-in" to the new changes, except manually: grouping foo { ... } grouping new-foo {

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

Hi, Not sure I like the YANG module with all the datastore identities because it makes datastore discovery more complicated. I prefer the server advertise capabilities in the message. More importantly, all the existing NETCONF operations use a container with a choice in it to select the source

Re: [netmod] augment and if-feature

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 16/03/2017 16:17, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dale, >> >> >>

Re: [netmod] augment and if-feature

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > Robert Wilton writes: > > It isn't just any if-feature on the container that is being augmented > > that needs to be considered. You would have to consider all if-feature > > statements by walking

Re: [netmod] augment and if-feature

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Dale, > > > On 15/03/2017 19:02, Dale R. Worley wrote: > >> JOEY BOYD writes: >> >>> module base-module { >>>prefix bmod; >>> >>>feature do-things; >>> >>>container things { >>>

Re: [netmod] augment and if-feature

Hi, This thread is not surprising because the YANG conformance model is not that well defined. As long as the protocols that access hierarchical YANG data require the parent to be implemented in order to access the child, it really doesn't matter how you want to spin the augment conformance. In

Re: [netmod] New I-D Submission: draft-bertz-netmod-commonaugment

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Lyle Bertz writes: > > > Understood. > > > > Let's discuss at the meeting though. This was a significant issue in the > > development of the IETF DMM FPC yang files and our open source project. > I

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > I think we can allow both and leave it to the document author. Either > > the author uses a well known tree format and refers to its definition > > or the author uses a not yet well known tree format and then it

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 8 Mar 2017, at 16:05, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > Martin, Juergen, > > > > > > On March 7, 2017 8:08:26 PM Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder

[netmod] 6087bis update

Hi, draft-11 is not correct (sorry). draft-12 has the requested updates - update YANG tree syntax section - add new sub-section on usage examples Andy ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

Hi, Originally 6087bis had a guideline for each draft to have an informative reference to 6087bis tree diagram section. This got removed along the way (I can't find it in sec 4.9). It is important that documents use the exact same symbols as every other tree diagram, so the reader can learn to

Re: [netmod] Hi all, one issue about YANG deviate's Substatements

rd to understand. > Thanks & Regards > > > > Walker (Guangying zheng) > > > Andy > > > *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com] > *Sent:* 2017年2月22日 3:24 > *To:* Zhengguangying (Walker) > *Cc:* netmod@ietf.org; Qudan (Beijing-NOS); Guopeipei (Pe

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

raised in their review of draft 11. > > > > Changes from draft 11 to draft 12 can be seen at this link: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog- > model-11=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-12=--hwdiff > > > > Please review and comment. > > >

Re: [netmod] Hi all, one issue about YANG deviate's Substatements

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Zhengguangying (Walker) < zhengguangy...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > When we define YANG models, there has one issue about “deviate's > Substatements” > > In section *7.20.3.2. The "deviate" Statement** given the * > Substatements supported, but “when”

Re: [netmod] Module tags

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> &

Re: [netmod] Module tags

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > >> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500,

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 11:59:48AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > How does one check whether a feature is implemented or not? I couldn't > > quite figure this out from reading the STD. >

[netmod] YANG 1.1 range-stmt

Hi, I noticed a new difference between our YANG compiler and pyang. leaf X { type int8; range "1 .. 1"; } pyang says this is an error: error: range error: "1" is not larger than "1" yangdump-pro does not issue any error or warning. I cannot find any text in sec. 9.2.4 that

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > Well sure it's odd for an augmenting only module. In my case I'm adding > > a feature to another module that is not

Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

lt;rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 30/01/2017 17:52, Andy Bierman wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hi Andy, Lada, >>>>

Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, Lada, > > On 28/01/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> >> > On 27 Jan 2017

Re: [netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

Hi, I think these guidelines should apply to other modules but using --ietf with pyang is up to the SDOs to decide. Andy On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani < mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com

[netmod] proposal to add 2 new guidelines in 6087bis

Hi, The "pyang --ietf" validator checks the statement order used in data-def-stmts. There is no guideline that says this is required. RFC 7950 says canonical order is RECOMMENDED. 1) data-def sub-statement order Proposal: add new last sentence to sec. 4.6, para 3: YANG data definition

Re: [netmod] New proposal: Yang Schema annotation

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi Balazs, > > I agree that such a mechanism would be pretty useful. > > I think though that the deviation-based approach can be used without > further ado. Why do you think that the "deviate" statement cannot handle >

Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

Hi, On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Kent Watsen wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > I think this discussion has come to a head. Please submit an updated > 6087bis as soon as you can. Some comments: > > > > > > 1) on the 3rd line

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:53:06PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The reason the status-stmt is broken is because status=obsolete is not > > inher

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

Hi, The reason the status-stmt is broken is because status=obsolete is not inherited from the parent. The status obsolete means it is gone from the server. Since YANG data is hierarchical, any descendants of the obsolete node are no longer accessible in any way. Andy On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at

Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Martin, > > Hi, > > It turns out that the recommendations on example modules are a bit > unclear. Different drafts do very different things. Some examples: >

Re: [netmod] example modules in 6087bis

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > It turns out that the recommendations on example modules are a bit > unclear. Different drafts do very different things. Some examples: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology >

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

any difference to the solution. Andy On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > [keeping netmod, bcc netconf] > > On 12/01/2017 22:05, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com>

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:05:07PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > So this thread is questioning why YANG allows constraints on config=false > > data nodes. &g

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:19:54AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > YANG statements: > >- It is not possible to define these statements so they are differ

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2017, at 17:56, Andy

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 11 Jan 2017, at 17:56, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> &

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > &

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

Hi, On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 11/01/2017 09:22, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juni

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > > Until the basic show-stoppers are solved, the redundant opstate objects > are not important. > > > Removing the foo-state objects means they are now invisible wrt/ YANG > constraints > > > (must, when,

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > I believe that shortening tranistion pain is in the longer term better > than prociding tools that at the end just extend the transition pain. > > That is a good goal, but ending up with a

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Alex Campbell wrote: > Hi, > > I approve of all of your proposed changes. > > However, I'm still not sure that "[implementing] the minimum set of > functionality that is contained in at least three vendor implementations" > is a

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > I think it is better to have a human decide what is in the module > > instead of relying on a pyang plugin to generate some additional module > > that follows some simplistic pattern. > > It may be simple, but I’m

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > I think that there may be a better way here: The data modelers design the > model on the assumption that an operational state datastore will be > present. We can then use a pyang plugin to generate an extra YANG model

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 10/01/2017 17:25, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/01/2017 16:16, Ju

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 10/01/2017 16:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:30:51AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Sch

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I think itt is not realistic to say that datastores are optional. > > > > e.g. leaf: If

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

and deviations are processed before "when" > statements. > > > augments and deviations are processed once when the module is loaded. A when-stmt is processed anytime the value of the XPath boolean result changes. Alex > > > Andy > -- >

Re: [netmod] "when" statement deviation

Hi, This is not allowed because it is too complicated to implement. Changing the schema tree based on values of instances within the schema tree is full of complications. Note that when-stmt used where allowed enables or disables the schema tree without changing it. This is hard enough to

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > I am more concerned about use cases that are not known so far, and so I > am against standardizing this (or any other)

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) <cwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > Thanks for taking the time to review the model. > > > > My comments are inline as [clyde]… > > > > *From: *netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org&g

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11

Hi, I am also considering an implementation. I share the same concerns that Alex has brought up. Some detailed comments: 1) /syslog/actions: seems like everything is in this container. Why is it needed? Seems like it could be removed as it serves no purpose 2) 8 features: the granularity

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

t;>>> Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 22/12/2016 10:00, Andy Bierman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz >>>>>> <mailto:lho...

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 22 Dec 2016, at 07:22, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni. > stanford.edu> wrote: > > > > Hi - > > > > On 12/21/2016 3:55 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > &g

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 03:55:16PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:47:49PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > YANG data is hierarchical. > > It makes no sense at all the consider the

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > > > Robert Wilton wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> The definition of "status" in RFC 7950 in section 7.21.2

Re: [netmod] Does the YANG "status" statement inherit from its parent node?

Hi, I just checked the following YANG: container foo { status deprecated; leaf L1 { status current; type string; } } pyang does not complain about it at all. yangdump-pro issues a warning Warning: Invalid status: child node 'L1' = 'current' and

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

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 14/12/2016 14:09, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > >> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wro

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

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mehmet Ersue <mer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > >

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

e devices if sufficient filtering is used. It does not differentiate between intended and applied config or understand different types of config=false nodes. Use a new operation to add these features. > Mehmet > Andy > > > *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com] > *

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

n and can be seen as an update to RFC 6244. > > > - RFC6087bis giving guidelines on how to use YANG with the new > datastore > > concept. > > > > > > Referring to Lada's proposal concerning the spin off document from > > > RFC7950 ("Adapting NETCONF for

Re: [netmod] Modelling different "levels" of data in YANG

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 09/12/2016 15:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> Robert Wilton wrote: >> >>> >>> On 09/12/2016 12:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:25:35AM +, Robert Wilton

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

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:36:11AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > > > > I disagree that the datastore model is a protocol specific aspect. I > > > consider datastores an architectural

Re: [netmod] Charter updates (was: [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00)

he responsible AD. I do not have charter changes to propose. > Thanks, > > Lou > > Andy > > On 12/2/2016 4:44 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Which specific NETMOD WG charter item authorizes this work? > > > > I have concerns about impac

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

Hi, Which specific NETMOD WG charter item authorizes this work? I have concerns about impact of this work on all YANG-based protocols. I have asked several times "how do you decide which servers need to implement the intended and applied datastores?" and never got an answer. I think an

Re: [netmod] How to prevent a client from modifying the type of an interface?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Alex Campbell wrote: > At Aviat we've been using deviations for this: > > module aviat-ietf-interfaces-dev { > // ... > > deviation "/if:interfaces/if:interface" { > deviate add { > must "if:type =

Re: [netmod] How to prevent a client from modifying the type of an interface?

Hi, I agree with Jan -- NACM already exists to prevent clients from accessing specific data nodes. Andy On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Jan Lindblad wrote: > Bart, > > Jürgen et al are of course right in what they say, but if you really want > to use YANG to enable a

Re: [netmod] Mandatory leafs via augment

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Bart, > > Alas, it sounds like you are attempting to do exactly what the existing > text is attempting to prevent you from doing. In particular, your approach > will break an existing client from working that hasn't

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

Hi, I have a general comment, related to Benoit's request to get YANG modules done. Augment is your friend. Use it. YANG 1.1 even allows conditionally mandatory nodes to be added, so there are no excuses for not publishing base modules that can be augmented later. IMO, adding new features in

Re: [netmod] comments on revised-datastores-00

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Martin Bjorklund writes: > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:48:35AM +0900,

Re: [netmod] comments on revised-datastores-00

Hi, How do the YANG validation rules for datastores apply to this new framework? The YANG RFC just refers to a 'valid' datastore. Is validation ever done on the 'intended' datastore, or just 'running' (what we have now). The framework you propose seems reasonable but the real issues show up in

Re: [netmod] 6087bis shepherd writeup issues

Hi, I will create an updated draft before the I-D cutoff Andy On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Andy, all, > > > > In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues > that I think need to be addressed before the document

Re: [netmod] deviation-stmt (7.20.3)

omment. We have tools that can regenerate the YANG as well. That is not that hard. But the type-stmt MUST be evaluated in the original document. The patched module has a different set of prefix-to-import bindings, so compiling the patched module may not work. Andy > *From:* Andy Bierman [m

Re: [netmod] deviation-stmt (7.20.3)

d by the server and produce a set of valid "deviated modules" which could then be fed to a YANG compiler that did not support deviations. This is non-trivial and not always possible, because of the type-stmt and possible import loops. > > Regards Balazs > > Andy

Re: [netmod] deviation-stmt (7.20.3)

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com&g

Re: [netmod] deviation-stmt (7.20.3)

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The deviation section has a lot of fluff text about how bad deviations > are, > > but very little text on how to

[netmod] deviation-stmt (7.20.3)

Hi, The deviation section has a lot of fluff text about how bad deviations are, but very little text on how to process the "deviate" statement correctly. The text is not clear if the statements altered in the target module are semantic patches or syntactic patches. Are the sub-statements of the

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >