Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund píše v Po 25. 09. 2017 v 11:57 +0200:
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Robert Wilton píše v Čt 21. 09. 2017 v 10:38 +0100:
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Yes, I agree that this scenario is very likely, but I think that the
> >
> > > > solution here is
Martin Bjorklund píše v Po 25. 09. 2017 v 11:57 +0200:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Robert Wilton píše v Čt 21. 09. 2017 v 10:38 +0100:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > > Yes, I agree that this scenario is very likely, but I think that the
>
> > > solution here is just to not mark the leaf as mandatory.
>
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Robert Wilton píše v Čt 21. 09. 2017 v 10:38 +0100:
[...]
> > Yes, I agree that this scenario is very likely, but I think that the
> > solution here is just to not mark the leaf as mandatory.
>
> But this makes the schema weaker, and implementors may think it needn't b
Robert Wilton writes:
> On 21/09/2017 16:10, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Robert Wilton píše v Čt 21. 09. 2017 v 10:38 +0100:
>>> On 20/09/2017 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
> On 19/09/2017 15:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:10:52PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> I can imagine a tool collecting data from a number of devices that fails if a
> mandatory state data are absent.
>
This is not a very robust tool. There are other reasons why a leaf may
be absert, e.g., an access control rule.
On 21/09/2017 16:10, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton píše v Čt 21. 09. 2017 v 10:38 +0100:
On 20/09/2017 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
On 19/09/2017 15:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017 v 14:49 +0100:
Hi Lada,
On 19/09/2017 14:37
Robert Wilton píše v Čt 21. 09. 2017 v 10:38 +0100:
>
> On 20/09/2017 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Robert Wilton writes:
> >
> > > On 19/09/2017 15:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017 v 14:49 +0100:
> > > > > Hi Lada,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 19
Robert Wilton writes:
> On 19/09/2017 15:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017 v 14:49 +0100:
>>> Hi Lada,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/09/2017 14:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I support the
On 20/09/2017 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
On 19/09/2017 15:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017 v 14:49 +0100:
Hi Lada,
On 19/09/2017 14:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi,
I support the
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Wilton"
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 12:04 PM
> On 20/09/2017 11:18, t.petch wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Ladislav Lhotka"
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:37 PM
> >
> >> Martin Bjorklund writes:
> >>
> >>> Ladislav
On 20/09/2017 11:18, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Ladislav Lhotka"
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:37 PM
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi,
I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
1. Introduce a new module name and namesp
- Original Message -
From: "Ladislav Lhotka"
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:37 PM
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
> >>
> >> 1. Introduce a new module name and namespace so that i
On 19/09/2017 15:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017 v 14:49 +0100:
Hi Lada,
On 19/09/2017 14:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi,
I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
1. Introduce a new mod
Robert Wilton píše v Út 19. 09. 2017 v 14:49 +0100:
> Hi Lada,
>
>
> On 19/09/2017 14:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Martin Bjorklund writes:
> >
> > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Introduce
Hi Lada,
On 19/09/2017 14:37, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi,
I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
1. Introduce a new module name and namespace so that it is not
necessary to carry along the deprecated baggage. If readabi
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
>>
>> 1. Introduce a new module name and namespace so that it is not
>> necessary to carry along the deprecated baggage. If readability is
>> the primary concern, this is
I believe that starting a new model would cause a real pain since any
model augmentations now need to augment two differnet versions of the
IP model. (Actually any model references may cause extra work.)
I also believe that view that NMDA is for big gear but not for small
gear is not quite right.
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
>
> 1. Introduce a new module name and namespace so that it is not
> necessary to carry along the deprecated baggage. If readability is
> the primary concern, this is IMO the way to go. Instead of
> "ie
Hi,
I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
1. Introduce a new module name and namespace so that it is not necessary to
carry along the deprecated baggage. If readability is the primary concern, this
is IMO the way to go. Instead of "ietf-ip-2", I'd suggest something like "ie
All,
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7227bis-00 a working group document. Please
send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
yes, please also feel free to provid
All,
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7227bis-00 a working group document. Please
send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
yes, please also feel free to provid
21 matches
Mail list logo
