Re: [netmod] How to constrain a leaf to a read-only list of supported values?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > Back before there was YANG 1.0 I proposed the concept of constants in > YANG > > but this was seen as too complicated. This is the exac

Re: [netmod] How to constrain a leaf to a read-only list of supported values?

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Alex Campbell wrote: > > Dale R. Worley writes: > >> Ladislav Lhotka writes: > >>> typedef Compression-Method { > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> list node { > >>> config true; > >>> key name; >

Re: [netmod] kw review of draft-liu-netmod-yang-schedule

Hi, I read this draft. I really do not like mixing metadata that could apply to any data node (such as scheduling) into the data model. In your solution, in order to schedule some config, the grouping has to be used in the data model. I think the existing solution in RFC 7758 is better because

Re: [netmod] 'when' statement in edit-config payload parsing

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com

Re: [netmod] 'when' statement in edit-config payload parsing

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Vladimir Vassilev < > vladi...@transpacket.com > > > wrote: > > > > > On 09/1

Re: [netmod] 'when' statement in edit-config payload parsing

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Vladimir Vassilev <vladi...@transpacket.com > wrote: > On 09/13/2016 06:48 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not in favor of changing when-stmt so it works like must-stmt. > I prefer it work as designed. It is like choic

Re: [netmod] 'when' statement in edit-config payload parsing

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > On 13 Sep 2016, at 09:01, Yves Beauville > wrote: > > > > > > Both RFC 6020 and RFC 7950

Re: [netmod] 'when' statement in edit-config payload parsing

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Xiang Li <xian...@seguesoft.com> wrote: > Hi Andy > > On 9/12/2016 11:33 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ladislav Lhotka < <lho...@nic.cz> > lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> &

Re: [netmod] 'when' statement in edit-config payload parsing

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 12 Sep 2016, at 15:33, Juergen Schoenwaelder university.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think Section 8.3.3. provides an answer: > > > > When datastore processing is complete, the final

Re: [netmod] Using an empty type in a list key

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > "Dale R. Worley" <wor...@ariadne.com> writes: > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > >> Using a key of type empty is utterly pointless unless the point > >&

Re: [netmod] Using an empty type in a list key

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > Using a key of type empty is utterly pointless unless the point > > is to make the instance identifier longer. > > IMO using a key of type

Re: [netmod] Circular dependency in 'when'

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 07 Sep 2016, at 19:44, Vladimir Vassilev > wrote: > > > > On 09/07/2016 02:18 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Your example is not circular, and it is legal. However, the

Re: [netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity

Hi, I don't think the WG should be that concerned with other modules that configure hardware. If there are individual leafs that we should standardize for configuration in the IETF module then they can be discussed on the mailing list. An external module can use leafref instead of augment,

Re: [netmod] Using an empty type in a list key

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Phil Shafer wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:50:19AM +, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA) > wrote: > >> I did manage to find some older posts about empty types in keys. It > >> seems that perhaps YANG 1.1 allows

Re: [netmod] How to constrain a leaf to a read-only list of supported values?

elder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> > Sent: Friday, 2 September 2016 5:06 a.m. > To: Andy Bierman > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] How to constrain a leaf to a read-only list of > supported values? > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:41:04AM -0700,

Re: [netmod] How to constrain a leaf to a read-only list of supported values?

Hi, We keep having discussions about YANG conformance related issues. The only unit of conformance is the YANG module, so it is possible to think the way to solve the conformance/discovery problem is to put every definition in its own module. This is operationally absurd of course, so someday

[netmod] 3 RFCs in 1 day!

Hi, I get to be the first to thank Martin and Lada for all the work that went into these RFCs. YANG 1.1 is finally done! Now I hope we start seeing lots of implementations of these RFCs. Andy ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org

Re: [netmod] Design-Time schema mount

Hi, I agree with Martin about not specifying which YANG modules can be mounted under some mount point, in the YANG module. The mount point needs some basic properties (like "config root", "opstate root", whatever). Then data nodes are classified somehow (e.g. config=true/false) and that

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:50PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > > On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: >> >> Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and >>>

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

Hi, This text in sec 7.5.8, para 2 is wrong: If a container does not have a "presence" statement and the last child node is deleted, the NETCONF server MAY delete the container. This text in 6.4.1 is correct, which implies deleting an N container occurs when its non-NP container

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; > > As I said, that's the theory, but practice is considerably d

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > William Lupton writes: > > Regardless of the discussion about “published”, other organisations > > may be planning to use YANG modules that are currently within > > IDs. Obviously it’s

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

raft IETF YANG, > but it might occasionally be necessary to reference a draft model > (hopefully one that has already been sent for AD review) in a published > standard. This is why I would like the clarification to cover IDs (at least > WG-adopted ones)! > — > > William > > O

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

Hi, So this is the test that is supposed to replace 5.8, para 7: It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re- posted. IMO the

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

subtle* > recommendation for today’s model designers to future-proof their models. > > > > Please focus on the proposal, consistent with the Lou’s chair-request ( > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/NK864oXvIfeAYoCUTK40wn2Kw-8). > > > > Kent // as a contributo

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:12:01PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > In particular, I think that the guideline would be along the lines: > > If a given module "foo" only contains state and no

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > I don't properly understand the points that you are making, please see > clarifying comments/questions inline ... > > On 08/08/2016 22:51, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Au

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

ndle > state for system-generated objects (e.g., interfaces). It is not directly > related to the how to report applied configuration problem. It is however > indirectly related, in that a holistic solution can address both. > > > > Kent > > > > > > *From: *Andy

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Acee writes: > >Then I see no YANG language barriers in collapsing config and state > trees > >- the model root just needs to be “config true”. > > Great, I think we’re all agreed. Can we now discuss the text I

Re: [netmod] Design-Time schema mount

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Balazs Lengyel writes: > > > Hello, > > > > As I understood Andy, it was already agreed that if you advertise > > support for a model that defines extensions you MUST support those > >

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1: XML naming restriction

OK -- sorry -- must have read it wrong Andy On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes: > > The YANG 1.1 ABNF says: > > > >;; An identifier MUST NOT start with (('X'|'x') ('M'|

[netmod] YANG 1.1: XML naming restriction

Hi, The YANG 1.1 ABNF says: ;; An identifier MUST NOT start with (('X'|'x') ('M'|'m') ('L'|'l')) identifier = (ALPHA / "_") *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".") There is no explanation given why. The same restriction was copied to RESTCONF, also without

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

nfig false leaves for foo must go under /foo-state. > 2) All config false leaves for foo must go under /foo > 3) All config false leaves go under /foo where possible, or /foo-state > otherwise (e.g. for restconf-monitoring). > 4) Config false leaves go wherever the model writer decides is

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

Hi, I am somewhat confused about this discussion. Apparently it is a hyge problem to put foo-counters under foo-state? Configuration must be used (and setup by the operator?) in order for foo-counters to exist? So what problem does this solve? The opstate solution proposal requires a config

Re: [netmod] Design-Time schema mount

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > > On 2016-07-28 17:13, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> On 28/07/2016 15:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >> One issue I see is that extensions are effectively required to be >> optional, allowing tooling to

Re: [netmod] Design-Time schema mount

Hi, +1 to concerns about stability. Andy On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:14:42PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > We could define it using built-in statements, and bump YANG version >

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

Hi, *Re: - Any models that augment RFC 7223 and have config false nodes will be impacted.* There are many such vendor modules already. They augment the /interfaces container with config and the /interfaces-state container with non-config. Nobody is complaining this is broken, AFAIK. If you tell

Re: [netmod] Specifying revision date on import/include

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > We may have to be more explicit. A decent client talking to a > NETCONF/RESTCONF server should pick the latest version of the YANG > modules announced in the server's YANG library. A

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

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > RW: > > Are you thinking of a single global notification of convergence? > > > > > > > No > > > > > > I think the client would request a notification for its edit. > > > There would be a long-form and short-form

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

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Please see RW: inline > > On 12/07/2016 20:15, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>j.schoe

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

re, while leaving the > intended configuration datastore empty. Operational data can be contained > inside those list entries which exist in the applied configuration store, > instead of needing a separate tree to contain it. > > - Alex > > > > > ---

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <ev...@cisco.com> wrote: > *From:* Andy Bierman, July 12, 2016 5:49 PM > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <ev...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@

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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36:03AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Yes there is value in modeling conventions in general. > > I am trying to understand the value of thi

Re: [netmod] Comparison between two opstate datastore drafts

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > ] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:25 PM > > To: Eric Voit (evoit) > > Cc: Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco); >

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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Andy Bierman < > a...@yumaworks.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM > To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT

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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 12/07/2016 18:05, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> On 12/07/2016 17:17

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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM > To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> > Cc: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>, netmod WG <netm

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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM > To: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> > Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, netmod W

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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Acee, > > I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand > the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're > thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? > >

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:15:26AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >> &g

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:15:26AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:45:36AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I think some people will be confused by example YANG that is treated > exactly > > the sam

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 08/07/2016 11:41, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 08/07/2016 09:26, Juergen

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 08/07/2016 09:26, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:21:03PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >>> The difference is that ietf-restconf-monitoring is N

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:53:48AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

Re: [netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:22:43AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > The draft already distinguishes between these 3 cases > > > > Good. Then I am

[netmod] 6087bis: #37: EXAMPLE BEGINS

Hi, I want to resolve this issue because it affects RESTCONF and idnits https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues/37 The new proposal is to get rid of EXAMPLE BEGINS in the draft. id-nits MUST NOT complain about example modules. Only YANG wrapped in is subject to idnits. Andy

Re: [netmod] contact statement content

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > Kent Watsen writes: > > 1) Remove the text "In addition, the Area Director and other contact > > information MAY be present", as there is no reason to hint that > > listing ADs makes sense. > > My

Re: [netmod] Request to review the YANG compiler annotations draft.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > Some lessons learned from annotating SMI files for code generation > are probably applicable here. >(1) doing annotations "in-line", regardless of the grammatical >tricks used to support

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

early intermixed with the data modeling language. > K. > Andy > > > *From: *Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> > *Date: *Monday, June 27, 2016 at 2:21 PM > *To: *Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> > *Cc: *"t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com>, &q

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

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > [as a contributor] > > > > So, I see a strong preference for Option B which is all very logical, as > Acee points out. But Option B I see as being a fundamental change to > RFC6241, so if the netmod WG takes that

Re: [netmod] list keys out of order

lund <m...@tail-f.com>; a...@yumaworks.com > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] list keys out of order > > > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > >>

[netmod] list keys out of order

Hi, YANG 1.1, sec. 7.8.4 says: The list's key nodes are encoded as subelements to the list's identifier element, in the same order as they are defined within the "key" statement. The rest of the list's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the list element, after the keys.

Re: [netmod] Protocol Action: 'The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14.txt)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has approved the following document: > - 'The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language' > (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14.txt) as Proposed Standard > > This document is the product of the NETCONF Data Modeling

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Tom, > > Thanks for the perspective. I'm a little unsure if you're expecting > a response or just making a statement, so if you're looking for > something specific and don't see it below -- please let me know. > > On

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1: must-stmt evaluation in input, output, notification

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:58, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >> > >>> On 16

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1: must-stmt evaluation in input, output, notification

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 13 Jun 2016, at 16:39, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > &g

[netmod] YANG 1.1: must-stmt evaluation in input, output, notification

Hi, I am trying to implement YANG 1.1 must-stmt extensions. They appear to be under-specified. In sec. 7.5.3 The XPath expression is conceptually evaluated in the following context, in addition to the definition in Section 6.4.1

[netmod] YANG library update and new YANG guideline issue

Hi, We have been asked to make the YANG library module consistent wrt/ use of a container parent for a list. We decided to remove the submodules container parent from the child submodule. The submodule list and deviation list will now be consistent. Benoit has asked for a YANG guideline in

Re: [netmod] leafref value space and constraint

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:08:56AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> w

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

Hi, I prefer (B). I do not think it is realistic that vendors will rewrite their IETF modules and vendor modules and all the associated client/server instrumentation. This is expensive at many levels. Stability is important for an API. So if we do (A), there will be some modules following the

Re: [netmod] leafref value space and constraint

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:26:03AM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka writes: > > > "Dale R. Worley" writes: > > >> A difficulty I have with

Re: [netmod] NP-container and min-elements

is inconsistent here. Both constructs result in exactly the same mandatory list, but 1 is an error and the other is not. Andy On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26

Re: [netmod] NP-container and min-elements

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 26 May 2016, at 15:29, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote:

[netmod] NP-container and min-elements

Hi, Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something like this: container top { list foo { min-elements 1; ... } } A customer is saying this is incorrect. RFC6020bis is confusing on this issue. Terms:: o mandatory node: A mandatory

Re: [netmod] if-feature in default value

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > >

Re: [netmod] if-feature in default value

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > This comment from the Gen-ART review deserves it's own thread. > > > gen-art> - section 7.6.4 > gen-art> > gen-art>The default value MUST NOT be marked with an "if-feature" > statement. > gen-art> > [...] >

Re: [netmod] Can you remove the "Identity acl-base" defined in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Juergen, > > Of course, it is not confusing to you because you are in the box (vs. many > of us are outside the box looking in). > > RFC 6020 doesn't say all identities have to have a sub-identity. > > > This is how

Re: [netmod] Schema mount questions

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Balazs Lengyel < > balazs.leng...@ericsson.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > &

Re: [netmod] Schema mount questions

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Balazs Lengyel wrote: > Hello, > > 1) Will mounted YANG modules be listed in the base ietf-yang-library? Even > the mounted ones? > Does the server providing the mounted modules claim conformance to those models? IMO YANG mount

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Multiple deviations with same target

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > So perhaps the proposal is to add > >

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1 ABNF for deviate-stmt

"deviate add default" for leaf-list. > > /martin Andy > > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The ABNF for "default" is w

Re: [netmod] YANG 1.1 ABNF for deviate-stmt

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> The ABNF fo

[netmod] YANG 1.1 ABNF for deviate-stmt

Hi, The ABNF for "default" is wrong in the deviate-*-stmt (add, replace, delete) Is says [default-stmt] but it should be *default-stmt Is it intentional that the ABNF for deviate-delete-stmt leaves out config, mandatory, max-elements, and min-elements? I understand why "type" cannot be removed.

[netmod] YANG 1.1 ABNF issue for decimal64

Hi, The following restriction is not reflected in the ABNF. Same issue in RFC 6020. 9.3.3 . Restrictions A decimal64 type can be restricted with the "range" statement (Section 9.2.4

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

Hi, It is not that clear how the different types of modules or layers impact the task of designing a YANG module. It seems like vendor vs. standard or device vs. service are somewhat arbitrary, especially if virtualization is considered. The terminology would be more relevant if the

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, A

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:55:19AM +, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) > wrote: > > > I come at this from the classification angle, so my interest is if the > assumption that > > > a YANG model

Re: [netmod] schema mount issues

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > during the NETMOD session yesterday, we didn't have much time to discuss > open issues related to schema mount. So I created three new issues in the > GitHub project: > >

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis - 2 comments for your consideration

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > 1) It would be useful to expand section 4.3 a bit more to add another > example of the tree with some specifics that cater to most of the protocols > work being done in other WGs. Something along the line of the

Re: [netmod] actions and keyless lists

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > On 05 Apr 2016, at 11:09, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz

Re: [netmod] actions and keyless lists

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 04 Apr 2016, at 16:15, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > >

Re: [netmod] actions and keyless lists

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > On 04 Apr 2016, at 15:57, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I do not see any reason to prohibit this use of action-stmt >

Re: [netmod] actions and keyless lists

Hi, I do not see any reason to prohibit this use of action-stmt or notification-stmt. If the list has no keys then there is no need to distinguish instances because the data model defines no such semantics. What breaks if this is allowed? Andy On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Ladislav

[netmod] yangcli-pro now free

Hi, The yangcli-pro NETCONF client program is now free to use in binary form. It is supported on MacOSX and various Linux platforms. Info: https://www.yumaworks.com/yangcli-pro/ Files: https://www.yumaworks.com/pub/ Andy ___ netmod mailing list

[netmod] comments on YANG mount requirements draft

Hi, I was reading the requirements draft to see if that offered any insight wrt/ why I should like any of the solution drafts. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-netmod-yang-mount-requirements-00 sec 1) I do not really agree that the priority should be to make the client as simple as

Re: [netmod] Query about usage of local-name() in YANG XPATH expressions

files, and > restrict usage to a specific use case where we have a set of nodes across > multiple modules with the same name, we should be fine. > > > > William > > > > *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com] > *Sent:* 28 March 2016 20:51 > *To:* W

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >