>But don't get mw wrong, syntactically annotations would be allowed
>everywhere although in some places they may be a no-op.
OK
>This is also valid, see sec. 7.7.6 in RFC 6020:
I see, thanks.
>>True, I'd rather we can find a solution for annotating XML lists. Until
>> then, the draft SH
Kent Watsen writes:
Maybe I don't understand your response, but if we agree that annotations
>>> are a server-level thing (not module-specific), then I do not agree
>>>that a
>>> module's description should be able to say that an annotation should be
>>> ignored in other modules.
>>>
>>
>>It
>>>Maybe I don't understand your response, but if we agree that annotations
>> are a server-level thing (not module-specific), then I do not agree
>>that a
>> module's description should be able to say that an annotation should be
>> ignored in other modules.
>>
>
>It depends on the annotation's
Kent Watsen writes:
>>>1. In Section 3, it says:
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that the annotation A can be used by *any* module
>>> the server advertises, or just the modules that define/import
>>> annotation A?
>>
>>For all modules implemented by the server, no import is needed.
>
>
> Good,
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> > On 01 Jul 2015, at 16:25, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Lada,
>> >>> ay
>> >>> -
>> >>> The set of annotations must be extensible in a distributed manner
>> >>> so as to allow for defining new annotations without ru
Andy Bierman writes:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>> Hi Lada,
>>
>>>
>>>
>> - In the introduction, you mention:
>> Typical use cases are:
>>
>> o Deactivating a subtree in a configuration datastore while
>> keeping
>> the dat
Benoit Claise writes:
> Hi Lada,
>>
>
> - In the introduction, you mention:
> Typical use cases are:
>
> o Deactivating a subtree in a configuration datastore while keeping
> the data in place.
>
> o Complementing data model information wit
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 01 Jul 2015, at 16:25, Benoit Claise wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lada,
> >>> ay
> >>> -
> >>> The set of annotations must be extensible in a distributed manner
> >>> so as to allow for defining new annotations without running into
> >>> the risk of
>>1. In Section 3, it says:
>>
>>
>> Does this mean that the annotation A can be used by *any* module
>> the server advertises, or just the modules that define/import
>> annotation A?
>
>For all modules implemented by the server, no import is needed.
Good, but I think the text should say
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
>>
>>
> - In the introduction, you mention:
> Typical use cases are:
>
> o Deactivating a subtree in a configuration datastore while
> keeping
> the data in place.
>
> o Comp
Hi Lada,
- In the introduction, you mention:
Typical use cases are:
o Deactivating a subtree in a configuration datastore while keeping
the data in place.
o Complementing data model information with instance-specific data.
o RPC operations may use metadata ann
> On 01 Jul 2015, at 16:25, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> Hi Lada,
>>> ay
>>> -
>>> The set of annotations must be extensible in a distributed manner
>>> so as to allow for defining new annotations without running into
>>> the risk of collisions with annotations defined and us
Hi Lada,
ay
-
The set of annotations must be extensible in a distributed manner
so as to allow for defining new annotations without running into
the risk of collisions with annotations defined and used by
others.
What does "in a distributed manner" mean?
It m
Hi Kent,
thanks for reviewing the document.
Kent Watsen writes:
> [As an individual contributor]
>
> Already many comments have been made, hopefully he below comments are new:
>
>
> 1. In Section 3, it says:
>
> "By advertising a YANG module in which metadata annotation A is
>defined usin
[As an individual contributor]
Already many comments have been made, hopefully he below comments are new:
1. In Section 3, it says:
"By advertising a YANG module in which metadata annotation A is
defined using the "md:annotation" statement, a server specifies
support for the syntax of a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 01:44:11PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> > - Does the presence of an annotation impact the JSON encoding rules
> >> > that control when a module name prefix is needed or not? I assume
> >> > the answer is 'no' but it is not clear from the text.
> >>
> >> Bullet #1
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:22:55PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document
>> >> "Defining a
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:22:55PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >>
> >> This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "Defining
> >> and Using Metadata with YANG":
> >>
> >>
, please send them before as soon as possible.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
>> Date: Monday, June 15, 2015 at 6:49 PM
>> To: "netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" > <mai
annotations are not defined for specific locations in the
schema, defaults are not needed.
Lada
>
> --- Alex
>
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:14 AM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG La
9 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01
(until 2015-06-29)
This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document
"Defining and Using Metadata with
e "default" as a substatement; is this something that should be added?
--- Alex
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:14 AM
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01
(unt
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>> This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "Defining
>> and Using Metadata with YANG":
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01
>>
>> Please ind
From: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Monday, June 15, 2015 at 6:49 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 (until
2015-06-29)
This is a notice to sta
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "Defining
> and Using Metadata with YANG":
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01
>
> Please indicate your support by Monday June 29, 201
On 6/17/15, 8:46 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote:
>Again, my point is really that what to do and what is a safe behavior
>depends on the attribute. This document should not try to solve that
>problem.
>
This makes sense to me
>(In our case, if the client doesn't ask for inactive nodes, we prune
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 17:13, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun 2015, at 14:50, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:34:52PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 13:51, Jue
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun 2015, at 14:50, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:34:52PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 13:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 14:50, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:34:52PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 13:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:41:56PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Well, b
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:34:52PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun 2015, at 13:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:41:56PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, but it is exactly what Kent objected against. It is the requirement
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun 2015, at 14:20, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 12:12, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
> Martin Bjorkl
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 14:20, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 12:12, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>
>>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Martin,
thanks for the review.
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> o Last paragraph of section 3
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 13:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:41:56PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, but it is exactly what Kent objected against. It is the requirement to
>> support “old clients” that causes the trouble here (and elsewhere). If
>>
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun 2015, at 12:12, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> thanks for the review.
> >>
> >> Martin Bjorklund writes:
> >>> o Last paragraph of section 3 and the "description" in the
> >>> extension.
> >>>
>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:41:56PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>
> Well, but it is exactly what Kent objected against. It is the requirement to
> support “old clients” that causes the trouble here (and elsewhere). If client
> A sets “inactive” somewhere, then the datastore semantics will ch
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 12:12, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> thanks for the review.
>>
>> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>>> o Last paragraph of section 3 and the "description" in the
>>> extension.
>>>
>>> The text says that semantics are defined "
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
> > o Last paragraph of section 3 and the "description" in the
> > extension.
> >
> > The text says that semantics are defined "by other means". I
> > think the semantics should be def
Hi Martin,
thanks for the review.
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed this document, and here are my comments. I have some
> technical issues; apart from that I think this document is ready
> for publication.
>
> I have also implemented this statement in pyang (see the branch
>
Hi,
I have reviewed this document, and here are my comments. I have some
technical issues; apart from that I think this document is ready
for publication.
I have also implemented this statement in pyang (see the branch
'yang-metadata' in pyang's github).
Technical issues:
o The 'type' state
Kent Watsen writes:
> This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "Defining
> and Using Metadata with YANG":
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01
>
> Please indicate your support by Monday June 29, 2015 at 9PM EST.
> We are not only interested i
This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "Defining and
Using Metadata with YANG":
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01
Please indicate your support by Monday June 29, 2015 at 9PM EST.
We are not only interested in receiving defect reports, we ar
41 matches
Mail list logo
