Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-09 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
Christian Hopps writes: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 08:40:06AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: >>> >>> Is it allowed for a server to implement a module that augments another >>> module that it does not

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:04:11PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > > I defer to Chris on us of RPCs in general, but an interesting use case > that is supported with RPCs is tag modification in RO modules. > No, you are simply hiding configuration data behind RPCs. Somewhere the tags need to be

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Lou Berger wrote: > > > On 2/8/2017 3:34 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > >>> Lou Berger writes: > >>> > On

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > Lou Berger writes: > > > > > On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder > > > wrote:

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Lou Berger writes: > > > On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder > > wrote: > > ... > >> > >> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Christian Hopps
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: >> >> We also went with the split route with our tags draft. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/ > Also note that

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Christian Hopps
Lou Berger writes: > On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > ... >> >> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags >> require new editing primitives. > > It was an intentional design

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Lou Berger
On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: ... We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags require new editing primitives. It was an intentional design choice/preference by one of the authors. Basically,

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:11:01PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > > > We also went with the split route with our tags draft. > > > > > >

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > > We also went with the split route with our tags draft. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/ > > > > Features

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:06:19AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > We also went with the split route with our tags draft. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/ > > Features like deviations were not liked internally by the group. 2 > modules seemed like the

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-08 Thread Christian Hopps
We also went with the split route with our tags draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags/ Features like deviations were not liked internally by the group. 2 modules seemed like the KISS approach. Thanks, Chris. Balazs Lengyel

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-07 Thread Balazs Lengyel
My earlier problem was that if I do not implement the augmented module (modA) even if the augment is switched off by a feature, I still need to have the NOT implemented augmented module (modA) in yang-library to satisfy the import statement of the augmenting module (modB). So I decided to

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-04 Thread Andy Bierman
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. >

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-04 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
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. > Since YANG 1.1, features are announced in /modules-state/module/feature in ietf-yang-library defined RFC

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-04 Thread Christian Hopps
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > 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 required for my module to be >> useful.

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 12:45:44PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > Is it cleaner/preferable to do this or to have two models, one with the core > definitions and one with the augmentations? I do not think there is a clear cut rule for this. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Lou Berger
Is it cleaner/preferable to do this or to have two models, one with the core definitions and one with the augmentations? Lou On February 3, 2017 11:43:56 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Andy Bierman
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] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
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 required for my module to be > useful. My module is quite simple, conversely the module it augments > (yang

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Christian Hopps
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 08:40:06AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: >> >> Is it allowed for a server to implement a module that augments another >> module that it does not implement? My thinking was that the augment >> would

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 08:40:06AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Is it allowed for a server to implement a module that augments another > module that it does not implement? My thinking was that the augment > would simply not be implemented in this case. Is that true or must the > server

[netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

2017-02-03 Thread Christian Hopps
Hi, Is it allowed for a server to implement a module that augments another module that it does not implement? My thinking was that the augment would simply not be implemented in this case. Is that true or must the server implement any and all augmented modules referenced by a module? Thanks,