Thanks Lada and others for the responses here. Much clearer to me.
r.
On 4 March, 2016 at 5:05:03 AM, Ladislav Lhotka (lho...@nic.cz) wrote:
Hi Rob,
Rob Shakir writes:
> Hi NETMOD,
>
> I am in the process of implementing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json–08, and had
> some queries as to t
Hi Rob,
Rob Shakir writes:
> Hi NETMOD,
>
> I am in the process of implementing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json–08, and had
> some queries as to the content. Hopefully there is some misunderstanding on
> my part, or it helps to clean up the text for future people
> reviewing/implementing.
>
> The
On 2016-03-04 00:47, Rob Shakir wrote:
> Yes. Any identity value that extends that base must be unique AIUI, so each
> of those values then defines its namespace. Why do we carry it in the JSON?
The identity values must indeed be unique - and that's precisely why
they need module/namespace quali
Hi Kent,
Thanks for the response!
On 3 March, 2016 at 11:32:39 PM, Kent Watsen (kwat...@juniper.net) wrote:
> In this case, we never use the actual namespace (i.e., http://a.tld and
> http://b.tld) so calling it ‘namespace qualified’ appears ambiguous. Should
> it be simply referred to as ‘modu
> In this case, we never use the actual namespace (i.e., http://a.tld and
> http://b.tld) so calling it ‘namespace qualified’ appears ambiguous. Should
> it be simply referred to as ‘module-qualified’?
It is a bit of a misnomer, and perhaps could be improved, but Section 4 defines
“namespace-qu
Hi NETMOD,
I am in the process of implementing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json–08, and had
some queries as to the content. Hopefully there is some misunderstanding on my
part, or it helps to clean up the text for future people reviewing/implementing.
The phrase ‘namespace-qualified’ seems to have s
