Sorry, adding links.
> Hello,
> I wanted to implement this RFC [1] but I have great difficulty understanding
> how exactly it should work so I would like to ask for some clarification.
>
> As for the ietf-yang-library data, they are mentioned several times but I
> could find no details as to
Hello,
I wanted to implement this RFC [1] but I have great difficulty understanding
how exactly it should work so I would like to ask for some clarification.
As for the ietf-yang-library data, they are mentioned several times but I could
find no details as to how exactly they should look like.
Hi,
yanglint uses its own XPath implementation, which unfortunately does not
support axes, hence the error.
Regards,
Michal
On Monday, January 17, 2022 16:59 CET, Italo Busi
wrote:
> Lada, Martin,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion and thanks Tom for having raised this issue to
> Netmod WG
> On 14/12/2021 14:04, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Michal Vaško writes:
> >
> >>> Michal Vaško wrote:
> >>>>>> Michal Vaško wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Michal Vaško wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>&
> Michal Vaško writes:
>
> >> Michal Vaško wrote:
> >> > > > Michal Vaško wrote:
> >> > > > > > Michal Vaško wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Hello,
> >> > > > > > > > I would like to g
> Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > > Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > > > > Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across,
> > > > > > >
> > Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > > Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which
> > > > > > to>
> > > > > > me does not seem to have an
> Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > Michal Vaško wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to>
> > > > > me does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied.
> &
> Michal Vaško wrote:
> > Hello,
> > > I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to> me
> > > does not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied.
> > > module mod_b {
> > namespace "x:example:mod_b";
Hello,
I would like to get some input for a use-case I came across, which to me does
not seem to have any consistent rules that can be applied.
module mod_b {
namespace "x:example:mod_b";
prefix "mb";
grouping mylist_wrapper {
list mylist {
key "name";
think the design
includes an error or is simply based on wrong YANG-related assumptions.
Regards,
Michal
>
> Kind regards
> -- Alex
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michal Vaško
> Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:17 PM
> To: Alexander Clemm
> Cc: Mahesh Jethanan
Hi,
it seems the "modify-subscription" RPC [1] includes a mandatory choice "target"
[2]. In effect, it is not possible to modify a subscription for it to be
without a filter. I do not understand the reason for this, is it intentional or
an error in the module?
Regards,
Michal
[1]
On Saturday, April 03, 2021 15:07 CEST, Ladislav Lhotka
wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michal Vaško wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> thanks for the answer.
> >>
> >> On Friday, April 02, 2
"netconf" because that is WG that published it but no
harm in adding a copy for "netmod".
> Eric
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netconf On Behalf Of Michal Vaško
> > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:14 AM
> > To: netconf
> > Su
Hi Kent,
> > okay, thanks. Then it seems it should be normally supported
>
> Yes, and note the “workaround” mentioned in the GItHub issue is essentially
> the solution in your OP.
Well, not exactly. It is a solution for model authors who want to make their
action conditional. I am trying
Hi Kent,
okay, thanks. Then it seems it should be normally supported and made
conditional. Just to make certain, the same goes for notification, right?
Regards,
Michal
On Friday, September 25, 2020 19:19 CEST, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> > Now, I believe there is some reason why
On Friday, September 25, 2020 12:57 CEST, tom petch
wrote:
> From: netmod on behalf of Michal Vaško
>
> Sent: 25 September 2020 11:18
>
> Hi,
> since no one replied am I to understand this is an unforeseen use-case? In
> that case there could at least be an agreement
ndition is not taken into
consideration and it should be ignored with no additional messages?
Also, there is a similar use-case with a notification instead of an action and
the behavior should be the same.
Regards,
Michal
On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:11 CEST, Michal Vaško
wrote:
> Hi
Hi,
I would like to ask for some clarification on what exactly the following
(valid, I think) YANG snippet means:
container cont {
container cont2 {
leaf l2 {
type string;
}
}
leaf l1 {
type uint32;
}
}
augment /cont/cont2 {
when "/cont/l1 == '5'";
action act;
}
Hi Carsten,
you had an interesting idea to have tools that could warn about these problems
(although that is hardly a proper solution) but it is not really possible
because the problem may occur whenever there is union with a 'string' and
'int8' - 'int32', 'uint8' - 'uint32', or 'boolean', in
T, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:24:43PM +0200, Michal Vaško wrote:
> >
> > Similar problem occurs also for boolean. So I am just wondering, is this a
> > known bug/feature, is it intentional? It is true that applications usually
Hello,
it seems that there are cases when YANG data represented in JSON include more
information than when converted to XML. Example:
YANG:
module a {
leaf l {
type union {
type string;
type uint8;
}
}
}
JSON:
{
"a:l": 20
}
These data will be parsed as the leaf "l"
Hi Martin,
right, I did not realize XPath context is also used for evaluating leafrefs or
instance-identifiers and not just must or when. Okay, so my understanding is
correct, thanks.
Regards,
Michal
On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:12 CEST, Martin Björklund
wrote:
> Michal Vaško wr
Hi,
when we were implementing support for NMDA, we came across the section about
actions and RPCs [1]. What I understood from it is that, effectively, all RPCs
and actions are validated against the data in the operational datastore. So,
for example, instance-identifiers and leafref targets in
Hi,
yanglint actually validates the module just fine (at least the latest version)
once the grammar errors are fixed. Namely, the spaces before ";" on lines 191
and 199 are removed.
Regards,
Michal
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 23:13 CEST, Mahesh Jethanandani
wrote:
> Hi Balasz,
>
> In
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But this data is not:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nor is this, which is directly equivalent to the one above, because the
> container doesn't really exist if it doesn't have a child node present.
>
>
>
>
&
Hi Andy,
On Monday, June 24, 2019 19:11 CEST, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michal Vaško wrote:
>
> > Hi Rob,
> > I think there is a problem in the RFC because using only allowed steps I
> > got invalid data from initially valid data
. YANG calls this style a "non-presence
>container". This is the default style.
>
> Hence your request (because the NP container does not have any children) is
> equivalent to:
>
>
>
>
>
> which fails the "mandatory" check.
>
>
Hi,
I have encountered a situation that I think is not covered by RFC 7950. My
specific use-case was as follows.
model:
container TOP {
leaf L {
type empty;
}
choice A {
mandatory true;
container C;
}
}
data:
Parsing was successful, but printing these data back to
Hi,
I have encountered a problem while validating ietf-netconf-notifications
netconf-config-change notification while following NMDA. The RFC [1] says that
the "target" instance-identifier in this notification should be validated
against operational datastore. In my use-case there was a running
sistent snapshots
> and to do meaningful validation of received notifications. (Clients
> would not only need a consistent snapshot to validate a received
> notification but they would also need a snapshot taken at the time the
> notification was generated.)
>
> /js
>
> On W
Hi,
in ietf-hardware [1] there are notifications defined that include leafrefs
pointing to state data leaves. When the notification is generated, it is
validated with regard to the current state data and if successful, the
notification is then stored for possible future replay. Now, what
Hello,
we have implemented it as option 1 based on the "current()" function definition
(RFC 7950 sec. 10.1.1):
The current() function takes no input parameters and returns a node
set with the initial context node as its only member.
If this was not intended and actually option 2 is correct,
purpose just fine.
Regards,
Michal
On Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:24 CET, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Martin, Michal,
>
> Do we need any clarification in the draft?
>
> Regards, B.
> > Michal Vaško <mva...@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> >> Hi,
Hi,
we have encountered some problem while implementing a feature from
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05, specifically not resolving groupings
and printing uses names instead (Section 2.2).
We have 2 example models, A and B. A defines a container and a grouping. B
defines an augment
nks for raising this.
>
> On 26/01/2018 09:14, Michal Vaško wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > we have tried implementing the YANG module
> > ietf-yang-libr...@2018-01-17.yang from draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895 and have
> > encountered a problem. I am not completely certain that
Hello,
we have tried implementing the YANG module ietf-yang-libr...@2018-01-17.yang
from draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895 and have encountered a problem. I am not
completely certain that the issue is with the model and not our XPath
evaluator, but based on the definitions I have found I believe the
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:22 CET, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Michal Vaško <mva...@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > we have noticed that RFC 7950 page 120, when mentioning augment
> > substatements targeti
Hi,
we have noticed that RFC 7950 page 120, when mentioning augment substatements
targeting container, list, case, input, output, and notification, skips
"anydata" and "anyxml". Based on the next section 7.17.1. and the grammar, it
seems not intentional and we wanted to submit errata.
Also, in
Hi,
in NETCONF server draft [1] there is ietf-ssh-server model. It defines feature
"ssh-x509-certs" and then uses it twice in a grouping. Referring to RFC 6020
[2] (I haven't noticed any difference in the YANG 1.1 draft), in a grouping
prefixes, type names, grouping names, and extensions should
Hi,
I noticed that the module ietf-ipfix-psamp from the RFC 6728 contains what is
to my understanding an invalid string. This tring represents the pattern for
typedefs ieNameType and nameType, they both include "\S" in double-quoted
string, which according to RFC 6020 section 6.1.3 should be
Hi,
during our ietf-yang-library module implementation, when we try to generate
proper data tree with the correct information about a NETCONF server modules we
encountered some problems.
Based on the descriptions of implement and import enum values we implemented
module loading in the
Hi,
I want to make sure I understand the effect of including a submodule in another
submodule (of the same belongs-to parent, naturally).
RFC 6020 sec. 7.1.6 says:
"When a module includes a submodule, it incorporates the contents of
the submodule into the node hierarchy of the module. When a
43 matches
Mail list logo
