Re: [netmod] yang-next

I tried and failed to the repo to email events to the list. If anyone knows how to do this, please send mail to netmod-cha...@ietf.org. Thanks, Lou On 3/11/2016 5:17 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > I think it is a good idea to capture ideas like this, but I also think > that such ideas should be

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06

ve the authors extra time before the meeting cut-off to address comments in a draft update that, hopefully, can be discussed in BA. Thank you, Lou (and Kent) On 2/29/2016 3:50 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > All, > This starts a two-week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-mo

[netmod] proposed change to WG IPR process

Hi, I'd like to propose that the WG follow the same process that I've used in other WGs with respect to IPR polling. In particular, that the template included below be sent to all authors and contributors named in a draft as part of: 1) WG acceptance (this is new for the WG), and 2) WG last ca

Re: [netmod] Moving the WG discussion on mount forward

Eric, Great comments -- see below On 3/1/2016 5:56 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: > What I would like to see: > > (1) Terminology included which unambiguously partitions the functions of the > three different type of mount options discussed in this WG (i.e., structural > mount, alias mount, an

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] I-D Action: draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-03.txt

-yang-arch] I-D Action: draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-03.txt Date:Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:55:31 + From:Jeff Tantsura To:Lou Berger CC:Routing Area YANG Architecture DT , Routing WG Hi RTGWG, Given the importance of the document, please do review and provide your comments,

[netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06

All, This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06. The working group last call ends on March 14. Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list. Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome

[netmod] Moving the WG discussion on mount forward

All, At last week's interim, Martin committed to update his document based on the meeting and then work with the other mount document authors (i.e., Lada and Alex) on a future version. Martin has now published this version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount-02

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

expected to be mounted at that > point? > > Certainly it would seem that there are particular modules that you would > expect to be mounted at that point (e.g. routing) and other modules that > you would not (e.g. interfaces/hardware/etc). > > Rob > > > On 26/02/2016 11:13, Lou

Re: [netmod] operational state: next step

hich solution the community favored. There was an advantage for > solution 2. > However, we want to make that the WG to make an informed decision. > > Kent and I have searching for independent people who could analyze the > different solutions, and provide the pros/cons of each solutions. No

Re: [netmod] explicit mount

Rob/Martin, On February 26, 2016 6:01:23 AM Robert Wilton wrote: On 26/02/2016 07:25, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 25/02/2016 08:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: I think the

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity YANG module

Dan, I could see entity as perhaps another use case, but don't understand how it could be another possible solution. Am I missing something? Lou On February 23, 2016 6:36:01 AM "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" wrote: Speaking about mount - was I the alone in thinking during the virtual interim yes

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06

Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of the preparation for WG Last Call Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If so, has this IPR been

[netmod] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-02.txt

t-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Network Device YANG Organizational Models Authors : Acee Lindem Lou Berger Dean Bogdanovic Christan Hopps

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

the sum of all. Lou Andy On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Lou Berger wrote: [retry] Martin, On 2/8/2016 3:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> Thanks for the response. See below. >> >> On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wro

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Kent, Thanks for the response see below. On February 9, 2016 3:54:41 PM Kent Watsen wrote: Hi Lou, I know that this is a difference between the solutions, but I don’t see it listed as a requirement. There is a requirement to return the diff, but that’s all. Is there actually a nee

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Kent, On 2/9/2016 10:42 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > >> Can you please suggest an approach of how to return a single tree that >> contains the data from two separate datastores (where the leaf paths may >> overlap)? I think that the approach would need to work both for get >> requests and also

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

Thanks Andy -- It seems to me that there are aspects of your comments that apply to each... Lou On 2/8/2016 3:29 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > > I was commenting on solution 1. > > > Andy > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Lou Berger <mailto:lber...@lab

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

[retry] Martin, On 2/8/2016 3:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> Thanks for the response. See below. >> >> On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Lou Berger wrote: > [...] > &g

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options

Martin, Thanks for the response. See below. On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Lou Berger wrote: >> Hi Juergen, (All) >> >> I've change the subject line as I'm really commenting on all three >> documented options in this mes

Re: [netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

Hi Andy, Thanks for the very good comments. Which solutions(s) were you commenting on -- you say "this" so is ambiguous. Lou On 2/8/2016 2:17 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Lou Berger <mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: > >

[netmod] OpState Solution Options (Was: Re: a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang)

mation is workable for them. Lou > /js > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:52:33AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> Juergen, >> >> How do you feel about the proposed modification on the table? (Leaving the >> model defined config leaves untouched and adding a -CFG or -metadata &

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Juergen, How do you feel about the proposed modification on the table? (Leaving the model defined config leaves untouched and adding a -CFG or -metadata sibling node which would contain the additional automatically generated leaves.) Lou On February 5, 2016 7:24:29 AM Juergen Schoenwaelde

Re: [netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Rob, Thanks for the response, see below. On February 5, 2016 6:36:47 AM Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lou (& Chris), Thanks for the comments. On 04/02/2016 22:31, Lou Berger wrote: Hello, A few of us in the routing area architecture yang DT discussed this draft yesterday and had a coupl

[netmod] a few comments on draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang

Hello, A few of us in the routing area architecture yang DT discussed this draft yesterday and had a couple of comments, (note that the open config contributors who are members of the design team did not participate in this discussion): - that with tooling, it is possible for the models available

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Martin, On 2/4/2016 3:22 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > The way I understand the requirement from Lou et. al, which is also > what structural mount supports, is a way to mount (or "relocate") a > set of modules under a certain path. Currently the complete subtrees > defined by this module set is m

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Juergen, On 2/4/2016 2:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:07:32PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> >> On 2/4/2016 12:02 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> Can I mount /top/second? >> yes. But in our use case, we wouldn't explicit

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

On 2/4/2016 12:02 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Can I mount /top/second? yes. But in our use case, we wouldn't explicitly do a mount here. but we would allow a server may choose to support it. > Why would a solution be simpler if I make > this impossible? We're not suggest this. We're st

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Juergen, see below On 2/4/2016 11:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:53:11AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> Juergen, >> >> see below. >> >> On 2/4/2016 9:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:02:2

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Juergen, see below. On 2/4/2016 9:12 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:02:26AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >>> If more granular mounts are needed, then we should IMHO _not_ bundle >>> this with the notion of YANG submodules. Perhaps you meant sub

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Juergen, See below. On 2/4/2016 7:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:04:12PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> 5. while our primary requirement is for 'mounting' of top level >>modules, mounting of submodules may also be useful. (DT not dr

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Lada, Thank you for the response. See below. On February 4, 2016 6:39:11 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Hi Lou, Lou Berger writes: I thought it would be worth summarizing what we're looking for in our draft, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-02 (note new version in case you missed it)

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

merging may be more appropriate/likely then picking one. Lou Rob On 04/02/2016 04:26, Lou Berger wrote: Alex, On February 3, 2016 8:35:54 PM "Alexander Clemm (alex)" wrote: Hi Kent, I do think that we should have a slot for that draft as well. The structural mount case is a var

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

Robert, Thanks for pointer, nested subsystems look really close to what we're looking for and we could make do with a standardized form of it. (We were thinking nested modules, but given the definition of the server chooses we could make due.) Now we just need someone to write it up and submit

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

ias), and with two (peer) (the earlier draft). --- Alex -Original Message- From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:27 AM To: Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco) Cc: Lou Berger ; netmod WG ; Alexander Clemm (alex) ; E

Re: [netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

next day, so please respond quickly to this email if possible. Thanks, Kent and Tom On 2/2/16, 2:04 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" wrote: I thought it would be worth summarizing what we're looking for in our draft, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-02 (note new v

[netmod] Yang mount / ysdl example use case

I thought it would be worth summarizing what we're looking for in our draft, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-02 (note new version in case you missed it) with respect to the draft-lhotka-netmod-ysdl and draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount drafts. This is just my view, so my co-authors may wi

Re: [netmod] pptx version of draft-mansfield slides for IETF 94

If you take the PDF link and replace pdf with pptx you should get the source file... Lou On November 5, 2015 2:36:30 PM Scott Mansfield wrote: There is an embedded pdf file on one of the slides that (ironically) doesn't show up if the pptx is converted to pdf. Responding to a suggestion

Re: [netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

Hi Tom, Not to push, but I'm still on clear where the requirements stand. Of the 7 requirements listed in the chairs requirements document, which do you believe have outstanding *consensus* issues and which do you think have been no issues? Is it fair to state that the requirements without issue

Re: [netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

rk in time > and publish an updated draft, so that it san be referenced by follow-on > solution drafts, in both the NETMOD and NETCONF WGs. So given the formal WG process, isn't time for the draft to at least be a wg draft? Thanks, Lou > > Thanks, > Kent > > > > On 9/

Re: [netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

Tom, chairs, At the last meeting, I believe I heard that a statement of consensus - i.e., a consensus call - on the requirements would be made by the chairs, on list. (With the understanding that there are details of the requirements that will need to be documented, presumably in a WG versio

[netmod] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-01.txt

.@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Network Device YANG Organizational Model Authors : Acee Lindem Lou Berger Dean Bogdanovic

Re: [netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements

On 9/11/2015 8:09 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >>> 3. Support for both transactional, synchronous management >>> >> systems as well as distributed, asynchronous management >>> >> systems >>> >> >>> >>a. For asynchronous systems, the ability to request a protocol >>> >>operation to no

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m54c7bcbed84a08dc78fba128d500f8c0 On 9/10/2015 11:01 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > I got this, but there is no url to the webex there. Can you send the > url? > > > > /martin > > > Nadeau Thomas wrote: > NETMOD Working Group invites you to join

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

ection and send it to the list now so that there's no ambiguity of what is being ased for folks to agree to in the meeting? Thanks, Lou PS The last time I tried to capture an issue on this list I was basically told to write a requirements draft, now the answer is the opposite... > >&g

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

or observing the intended and applied state separately". I think they do, but you certainly are also correct that the format (and UI) is completely different and there is a real cost in both development and runtime for support this new capability . Lou > Cheers, > > Einar > >

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

, please be constructive and provide proposed changes to the text; if the latter, please specify that as well. —Tom /js On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:12:58PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: Juergen, It sounds like you are agreeing with the requirements but not the solution. I think this is a

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, A nit on your mail: On September 10, 2015 4:40:39 AM Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, The YANG coordination team has spent some time reading and gathering input on the requirements and proposed solutions in draf

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

Juergen, It sounds like you are agreeing with the requirements but not the solution. I think this is a valuable distinction, i.e., that it's possible to agree with one but not the other. I'd also like to point out that the first part of the discussion is limited to requirements only so we can

Re: [netmod] logical systems model

e detail. The initial set of issues I see were in an earlier e-mail: On 9/1/2015 9:45 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > That said, there are some specifics that will need to be addressed to > use > this approach: e.g. to quote: > Mounted data is "read-only" data. > YANG-Mount doe

Re: [netmod] logical systems model

On 09/02/2015 11:38 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > I like this, but I would actually not use mount here. I don't think > > it is necessary. This would be a model for devices that support > > multiple 'virtual-servers' / 'logical-network-elements'. So in this > > model you co

Re: [netmod] logical systems model

Martin, On 09/02/2015 06:42 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >>> Can one of you give an example of how this word work for a device (which >>> may be physical or virtual) that allocates done resou

[netmod] New Yang issue? (was Re: Motivations for Structuring Models)

On 8/31/2015 11:04 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Randy Presuhn writes: >> ... >> Life is such that once a resource has been modeled, it will be >> used/re-used/embedded in systems in ways in which its designers >> couldn't be expected to imagine. A consequence of this is that >> if instance nam

Re: [netmod] logical systems model

Alex, Thanks for the response - see below. I think the additions of 'mounts' that are themselves configurable (with support for local and recursion/cascades) is a really interesting and may turn out to be very useful/important. Although it does add its own complexity. That said, there are some

Re: [netmod] logical systems model

On August 28, 2015 5:33:41 PM Andy Bierman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > >> On August 28, 2015 3:53:33 PM Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Alexander Clemm (alex) > > >> > wrote: &g

Re: [netmod] logical systems model

On August 28, 2015 3:53:33 PM Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote: -Original Message- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 4:31 AM To: Martin Bjorklund ; a...@yumawo

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

On 8/27/2015 8:23 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > I don't see the 6 modules that have already been published so far in RFCs > as the problem. I suggest focusing on the 194 modules that have not > been published. 100% agree > Should the IETF spend a year or two debating the ONE TRUE > PERFECT uber

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

On 08/27/2015 02:42 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> The flat sea of YANG modules brings a different set of issues and I >> > am unsure what they are; > > This is main problem I have. What the heck is the problem we are trying > to fix? > The first, but not only problem, is today's ~200 top le

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

On 08/26/2015 03:48 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Lou Berger <mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: > > Tom, > > On 8/26/2015 9:34 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > ... > > This is exactly what I want to g

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

Tom, On 8/26/2015 9:34 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > ... > This is exactly what I want to get on the table. So taking a step back, perhaps there is a YANG language question at the heart of this discussion. I think we're seeing cases where the same data model is useful in multiple cases/plac

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

Martin, On 8/26/2015 6:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> Sorry for the delayed response, was away for a bit. Not sure if any of >> this is OBE as just starting to catch up on mail. >> >> On 08/20/2015 03:58 AM, Martin Bjork

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

On August 26, 2015 6:24:19 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:41:26AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" wrote: >On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > >> > Hopefully,

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

On August 26, 2015 2:42:26 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor > models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that > a group

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

Martin, Sorry for the delayed response, was away for a bit. Not sure if any of this is OBE as just starting to catch up on mail. On 08/20/2015 03:58 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> >> See below. >> On 08/19/2015 05:27 AM, Mar

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

On 08/19/2015 08:48 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > >> On Aug 18, 2015:9:38 PM, at 9:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >> >> [Adding authors and RTG WG.] >> >> Hi Andy, >>I'm not sure who you are looking to hear from as you addressed this >> mail to t

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

Martin, See below. On 08/19/2015 05:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > Lou Berger wrote: >> On 8/18/2015 8:01 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: >>> Q1) scope >>> >>> >>> sec 2: >>> >>>The model organization can it

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

sorry for the slow response -- on a bit of a vacation schedule aat the moment... On 08/18/2015 11:04 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Lou Berger <mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: > > [Adding authors and RTG WG.] > > Hi An

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

[Adding authors and RTG WG.] Hi Andy, I'm not sure who you are looking to hear from as you addressed this mail to the netmod list. I'm happy to give my opinion as it seems you might have been aiming this at the draft authors. (but then again perhaps not.) On 8/18/2015 8:01 PM, Andy Bierman

Re: [netmod] Y34

n change over time, > and be different on each server. > > > Andy > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Lou Berger <mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: > > Andy, > > Thanks for the good information. (I'll followup off line a bit if > that&

Re: [netmod] Y34

Andy, Thanks for the good information. (I'll followup off line a bit if that's okay.) Of course there's a small matter of getting something standardized. Lou On July 27, 2015 2:19:09 AM Andy Bierman wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >

Re: [netmod] Y34

Andy, Have you thought through implications / possibilities for existing models, e.g., interfaces? Thanks, Lou On July 26, 2015 4:41:32 PM Andy Bierman wrote: Hi Acee, I agree that "Relocatable YANG" would be very useful, and have been thinking about the problem for awhile. I think the

Re: [netmod] Y34

I completely agree. We definitely will make use if this in the new models being developed in the routing area. Lou On July 26, 2015 1:50:00 PM "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: I think being able to place a given model anywhere in the device tree would be useful and this would allow a model to b

<    1   2   3   4   5