On 11/01/2016 20:18, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladis
Rob,
I think Ken already asked the question and we both responded that we see
this discussion in the scope of a solutions draft rather than related to
requirements. It is still the case I guess.
Gert
On 2016-13-01 15:37, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
>Hi Gert,
>
>I'm wondering if all the discussion h
Hi Gert,
I'm wondering if all the discussion here would be more appropriate in
the context of a specific solution draft and hence best deferred until a
overall solution approach has been chosen?
Otherwise, if there is a specific proposal to change the requirements
draft then could that be cl
On 2016-12-01 18:36, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
>
>
>On 12/01/2016 16:02, Gert Grammel wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-12-01 15:04, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 09
On 12/01/2016 16:02, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 15:04, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 2016-12-01 15:04, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
>
>
>On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 16:38, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> Lada,
>>> On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lada,
>>>
>>> On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
> Hi Lada,
>
> I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is
Lada,
On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Lada,
On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
Hi Lada,
I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for
here to allow both the user and system to easily relate between what the
operator d
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 14:29, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 10:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:12, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On
On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka
On 12/01/2016 10:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:12, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
>
>
>On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>>
>>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:12, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>>
>>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Mar
day 12 January 2016 10:23
To: Gert Grammel mailto:ggram...@juniper.net>>, Robert
Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
Gert Grammel writes:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>>Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36
>>To: Robert Wilton
>>Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-co
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> >>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lad
mod@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
>
>Hi Gert,
>
>Please see inline ...
>
>On 11/01/2016 16:19, Gert Grammel wrote:
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
On 11/01/2016 16:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:30:18PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
Going back to your original problem, my understanding is that the only
solution in YANG today is to have a config false hierarchy to represent
system-controlled objects whose lifeti
Hi Gert,
Please see inline ...
On 11/01/2016 16:19, Gert Grammel wrote:
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36
To: Robert Wilton
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and
>-Original Message-
>From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36
>To: Robert Wilton
>Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
>
>
>> On 11 Jan
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:30:18PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> Going back to your original problem, my understanding is that the only
> solution in YANG today is to have a config false hierarchy to represent
> system-controlled objects whose lifetime is independent from
> configuration, hen
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>
>>
"input-interface".
Thanks, Lada
--Gert
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
Sent: 07 January 2016 11:20
To: NETMOD WG
Subject: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
Hi,
a good use of applied co
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Gert,
On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D. Whe
e "if:interface-ref" (with
>> require-instance=true) as the type for "input-interface".
>>
>> Thanks, Lada
>>
>>>
>>> --Gert
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:20:05PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>
> On 1/11/16, 3:13 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:13PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> >>
> >> My opinion is that there is a 1-1 relationship between “applied” and
> >> “intended
On 11/01/2016 14:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Gert,
On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D. When a configuration change for any intended configura
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> Hi Gert,
>>>
On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D. When
On 1/11/16, 3:13 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:13PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>
>> My opinion is that there is a 1-1 relationship between “applied” and
>> “intended” config.
>>
>
>I do not understand. Please clarify what 1-1 means here.
In the conte
otka
Sent: 07 January 2016 11:20
To: NETMOD WG
Subject: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
Hi,
a good use of applied configuration could be to formalize the concept of
system-controlled entries as defined in RFC 7223, routing-cfg, and probably
elsewhere, too.
My idea is t
t;
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides that, the case you mentioned should be clearly in scope.
>>>>
>>>> Great, then I am open to discussing what this could mean for the
>>>> existing modules (ietf-interfaces, ietf-routing, ACL etc.).
&g
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:13PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> My opinion is that there is a 1-1 relationship between “applied” and
> “intended” config.
>
I do not understand. Please clarify what 1-1 means here.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Pho
>> One useful change to YANG semantics could be that a leafref with
>>> require-instance=true would refer to applied
>>> configuration. Specifically, the ACL module could then simply use
>>> "if:interface-ref" (with require-instance=true) as the type
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi Gert,
> >
> > > On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel wrote:
> > >
> > > Lada,
> > >
> > > The requirement says:
> > > D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration
> > >
etc.).
>>
>> One useful change to YANG semantics could be that a leafref with
>> require-instance=true would refer to applied
>> configuration. Specifically, the ACL module could then simply use
>> "if:interface-ref" (with require-instance=true) as the type for
>> &quo
uire-instance=true would refer to applied
>> configuration. Specifically, the ACL module could then simply use
>> "if:interface-ref" (with require-instance=true) as the type for
>> "input-interface".
>>
>> Thanks, Lada
>>
>>>
>>>
&
> >
> >
> > --Gert
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav
> >> Lhotka
> >> Sent: 07 January 2016 11:20
> >> To: NETMOD WG
> >> Subject: [netmod] applied conf
org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>> Sent: 07 January 2016 11:20
>> To: NETMOD WG
>> Subject: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> a good use of applied configuration could be to formalize the concept of
>> system-cont
entioned should be clearly in scope.
--Gert
>-Original Message-
>From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>Sent: 07 January 2016 11:20
>To: NETMOD WG
>Subject: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
>
>Hi,
>
>
On 08/01/2016 15:42, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Lada,
On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
Hi Lada,
I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for
here to allow both the user and system to e
> On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> Hi Lada,
>
> On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Robert Wilton writes:
>>
>>> Hi Lada,
>>>
>>> I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for
>>> here to allow both the user and system to easily relate betw
Hi Lada,
On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
Hi Lada,
I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for
here to allow both the user and system to easily relate between what the
operator desires and what configuration the system is actually usi
Robert Wilton writes:
> Hi Lada,
>
> I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for
> here to allow both the user and system to easily relate between what the
> operator desires and what configuration the system is actually using,
In a way, system-controlled interfaces ar
Hi,
a good use of applied configuration could be to formalize the concept of
system-controlled entries as defined in RFC 7223, routing-cfg, and probably
elsewhere, too.
My idea is that system-controlled interfaces or other entries would appear in
applied configuration, but not in intended conf
46 matches
Mail list logo
