Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in
> > which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library update
> > (posted Nov
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in
> which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library update
> (posted November 2nd). So the document is in a lim
Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in
which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library update
(posted November 2nd). So the document is in a limbo state since
November 6th.
/js
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:58:15PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> It was WG
It was WG Last Call’ed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/csUvs6408En0yY-vapyU3IFcJqQ
And it was closed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gbXE4Le1I_3Y5oaNnpjYoZZZ4lw
However, it may not have ever completed.
Thanks,
Acee
On 1/22/18, 11:45 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
w
Acee,
the documents that have already finished WG Last Call have a normative
reference on schema mount, which has not yet finished WG Last Call as
far as I recall. I think the RFC editor does not publish a document
with a missing normative reference. I continue to believe that the
time difference
+1, with Acee
Cheers,
Jeff
On 1/22/18, 08:18, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
wrote:
Hi Lada,
My primary concern is that the YANG Schema Mount delay will not only hold
the NI/LNE but all the models that are dependent on them (e.g., L2VPN and
L3VPN). This is for a docum
Hi Lada,
My primary concern is that the YANG Schema Mount delay will not only hold the
NI/LNE but all the models that are dependent on them (e.g., L2VPN and L3VPN).
This is for a document that has already finished WG Last Call. Additionally,
your estimate for the size of the change and time to
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:05:15PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>
>> Hence, for me, I see the choice as:
>> 1) do we publish the existing model now (perhaps also mark the draft as
>> experimental) followed by an updated draft with the NMDA compatible module?
>> 2)
Kent Watsen writes:
> Hi Dean,
>
> "As Lou mentioned, schema mount can be used with or without YANG library. As
> author who uses the schema mount in a draft and in product, don’t want to
> hold back the publication. We, IETF, are too slow. Getting data model RFCs
> published takes too much ti
Robert Wilton writes:
> On 17/01/2018 16:40, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>
>
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
>>> I don't agree. The metadata annotation solves real issues.
>> One issue with the annotation is that since the schema
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:05:15PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> Hence, for me, I see the choice as:
> 1) do we publish the existing model now (perhaps also mark the draft as
> experimental) followed by an updated draft with the NMDA compatible module?
> 2) do we publish both models in a single
Dean writes: " At the end, if we need to we can revise to support future
publications."
I write: "Just a clarification on your last sentence, my understanding is that
a revision is necessary in order for schema-mount to work on NMDA-based
servers. Should we publish the current draft as is now,
Hi Dean,
"As Lou mentioned, schema mount can be used with or without YANG library. As
author who uses the schema mount in a draft and in product, don’t want to hold
back the publication. We, IETF, are too slow. Getting data model RFCs published
takes too much time and we are not getting experie
As Lou mentioned, schema mount can be used with or without YANG library. As
author who uses the schema mount in a draft and in product, don’t want to hold
back the publication. We, IETF, are too slow. Getting data model RFCs published
takes too much time and we are not getting experience from im
Rob,
On January 19, 2018 1:05:46 PM Robert Wilton wrote:
On 17/01/2018 16:40, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
I don't agree. The metadata annotation solves real issues.
One issue with the annotation
On 17/01/2018 16:40, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
I don't agree. The metadata annotation solves real issues.
One issue with the annotation is that since the schema might be
different in different data
Hi Lou,
On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 10:13 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Managing transitions is always a challenge. Also coming up with a consensus
> solutions often involves compromise which will sometimes challenge
> enthusiasm for support of the solution. Unfortunately, schema mount hits
Lou Berger wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Managing transitions is always a challenge. Also coming up with a
> consensus solutions often involves compromise which will sometimes
> challenge enthusiasm for support of the solution. Unfortunately,
> schema mount hits both of these challenges.
>
> From the com
Martin,
Managing transitions is always a challenge. Also coming up with a consensus
solutions often involves compromise which will sometimes challenge
enthusiasm for support of the solution. Unfortunately, schema mount hits
both of these challenges.
From the compromise standpoint, we've had
Hi,
joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>
> On 1/18/18 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >>> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> >>> to publish a YANG module on the standards-
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 13:25 -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> On 1/18/18 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> > > > to publish
On 1/18/18 11:15 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
>>> to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
>>> something
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> > to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
> > something different 3-6 months later?
>
> IMO such a docume
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 14:39 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
> something different 3-6 months later?
IMO such a document churn would be a serious mistake.
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:25:35AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
>> when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half
>> pretty quickly.
>
> I provided a reasoning why 3 months may be feasible, I doubled
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:25:35AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
> when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half
> pretty quickly.
I provided a reasoning why 3 months may be feasible, I doubled it
since
On 1/18/18 05:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
> to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
> something different 3-6 months later?
Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
w
Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense
to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by
something different 3-6 months later?
Note that the NMDA contributors, after getting the overall design
done, move sequentially through the details of the docume
Martin,
I do agree with that at some point we will need to revisit scheme mount in
the context of YL-bis, as there are different possible solutions for
handling different datastores mounting different schema. I think Rob laid
out the options pretty well here, ie doing it now or publishing as
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 08:56 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need
> > > > > to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> ...
> >>> My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need
> >>> to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support NMDA.
> >>>
> >> Right now to SM is independent of Yang Library version and
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 14:14 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> On 1/17/2018 11:57 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > > Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree. The metadata annotation solves real issues.
> > >
> > > One issue with the annotati
On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
...
My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need
to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support NMDA.
Right now to SM is independent of Yang Library version and can run
with either.
No this is not correct.
On 1/17/2018 11:57 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think
I don't agree. The metadata annotation solves real issues.
One issue with the annotation is that since the schema might be
different in different datastores, it means that the cl
On 1/17/2018 11:26 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
But when we discussed this the last time having inline schema
available at the top level (in the SM module), the general consensus
was that having YL under inline was the preferred approach.
What is new now is that we have an indirection; each inst
On 1/17/2018 11:06 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I thought that the problem with the current solution and NMDA, was that
there is no way to find out what the LNE schema is if the LNE isn't
booted, and hence isn't providing . But I'm not sure what
issues that actually causes. E.g. does it cause i
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 17:40 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 17:18 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lou Berger wrote
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 17:18 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrot
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 17:18 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > > > > >
>
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 10:43 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
>
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> >>> On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjor
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 09:09 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> On 1/17/2018 1:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> ...
> > > > > > > I think
> > > > > > > it is incumbent upon those revisiting past/closed WG decisions (in
> > > > > > > this case, inline schema being represented by YL) to argue why the
> > >
On January 17, 2018 9:42:43 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>> On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
> On 1/16/2018 10:13 A
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >>> On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
> > On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > ... (trim
On 1/17/2018 3:20 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW t
On 1/17/2018 1:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
...
I think
it is incumbent upon those revisiting past/closed WG decisions (in
this case, inline schema being represented by YL) to argue why the
decision needs to be revisited.
I'm repeating my self: b/c the current solution doesn't work well with
On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 09:27 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:04:29AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Lada,
> > > Understanding impact of your proposal on the following would be
> > > quite helpful:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:04:29AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Lada,
> > Understanding impact of your proposal on the following would be
> > quite helpful:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ (pub requested)
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rt
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> > On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Lou Berger wrote:
> >>> On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> ... (trimming to topic)
> >>> rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are
Lou Berger writes:
> On 1/16/2018 10:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I think
it is incumbent upon those revisiting past/closed WG decisions (in
this case, inline schema being represented by YL) to argue why the
decision needs to be revisited.
>>> I'm repeating my self: b/c the c
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:15 +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> > >
> > > On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > ... (trimming to topic)
> > > > > > > > > > > rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are
> >
On 1/16/2018 11:15 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
with
No at all. The first and last time I
That's a fine idea, but ultimately we'll need to discuss/understand the
impact to the other dependent drafts, including the two already with the
IESG. If you can look at those and comment now, that would be helpful.
Lou
On 1/16/2018 10:55 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I propose that we update
On 16/01/2018 15:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
with
No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
2017:
https
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 10:34 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> ... (trimming to topic)
> > > > > > > > > rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts
> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No at a
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> ... (trimming to topic)
> rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
> with
> >>> No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
> >>> 2017:
> >
On 1/16/2018 10:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
I think
it is incumbent upon those revisiting past/closed WG decisions (in
this case, inline schema being represented by YL) to argue why the
decision needs to be revisited.
I'm repeating my self: b/c the current solution doesn't work well with
the
On 1/16/2018 10:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
... (trimming to topic)
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already
with
No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
2017:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19753.html
Oh,
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:13 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Lou Berger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Lou Berger wrote:
> > Lada,
> >
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 13:40 +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 13:23, Lou Berger wrote:
> > On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >
> > > On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > Hi Lou,
> > > >
> > > > in my view, we should do the following two (significant) chang
On 1/16/2018 8:50 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
It sounds like you are p
On 1/16/2018 8:40 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 13:23, Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-y
Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
>
> > Lou Berger wrote:
> >> Lada,
> >>
> >>
> >> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> >> Lada,
> >> >>
> >> >> It sounds li
On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having a parallel
list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounte
On 16/01/2018 13:23, Lou Berger wrote:
On 1/16/2018 7:41 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having
a parallel
list of m
On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Lada,
>>
>> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in
>> the
>> dir
Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> Lada,
> >>
> >> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in
> >> the
> >> direction of the draft and in (2) a basic a
On 16/01/2018 07:14, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having a parallel
list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted schemas directly in the
YANG library and
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 13:19 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
> >
> > 1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having
> > a parallel list of mounted schemas, we should
Lada,
On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
It is no change in direction,
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > Lada,
> >
> > It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
> > direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
>
> It is no change in direction, just a simplification
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
>
> 1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having
> a parallel list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted
> schemas directly in the YANG library and refer to t
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
> direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
It is no change in direction, just a simplification of the schema-describing
state data.
Lada,
It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in the
direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
rejectected by the WG multiple times. FWIW there are drafts already with
the iesg that will need to be returned to their WGs if either change is ma
Hi Lou,
in my view, we should do the following two (significant) changes:
1. Instead of borrowing a grouping from ietf-yang-library and having a parallel
list of mounted schemas, we should keep *all* mounted schemas directly in the
YANG library and refer to them from schema-mounts structures. Jue
Lada/Martin,
I don't believe we reached closure on this discussion. The open issues
relate to proposed new text (slightly modified):
at the end of the section [3.2] adding a new paragraph along the
lines of:
The use of mount points does not impact the nature of the
mounted data or in whi
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 07:49 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2017 7:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:43 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > > Hi Lada,
> > >
> > > On 12/19/2017 6:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
On 12/19/2017 7:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:43 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Hi Lada,
>>
>> On 12/19/2017 6:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:43 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi Lada,
>
> On 12/19/2017 6:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > > Lada,
> > >
> > >
> > > On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15
Hi Lada,
On 12/19/2017 6:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Lada,
>>
>>
>> On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
lada,
See below.
On
Woops that should be rw...
On December 19, 2017 6:21:22 AM Lou Berger wrote:
Lada,
On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
lada,
See below.
On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately, u
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 06:20 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Lada,
>
>
> On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > > lada,
> > >
> > > See below.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > >
Lada,
On December 19, 2017 1:12:35 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
lada,
See below.
On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately, using an action for querying embedded YANG library data
> (needed for the "inline"
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 10:05 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:11:59AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > > lada,
> > >
> > > See below.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:11:59AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > lada,
> >
> > See below.
> >
> >
> > On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > unfortunately, using an action for querying embedded YANG libr
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> lada,
>
> See below.
>
>
> On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > unfortunately, using an action for querying embedded YANG library data
> > (needed for the "inline" case of schema mount) doesn't work either
> > b
lada,
See below.
On 12/15/2017 8:59 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately, using an action for querying embedded YANG library data
> (needed for the "inline" case of schema mount) doesn't work either
> because now under NMDA actions can be used only on instances in the
> datast
Hi,
unfortunately, using an action for querying embedded YANG library data
(needed for the "inline" case of schema mount) doesn't work either
because now under NMDA actions can be used only on instances in the
datastore.
However, a good alternative seems to be a metadata annotation along the
lin
Hi,
the following text in sec. 3.2 of schema-mount-08 is wrong for traditional
datastores, and even more so for NDMA:
In case 1 ["inline"], the mounted schema is determined at run time: every
instance of the mount point that exists in the parent tree MUST
contain a copy of YANG library d
90 matches
Mail list logo
