[netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of preparation for WG Adoption of: draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR

[netmod] 6087bis update

Hi Andy, Lou and I just noticed that Section 3 (YANG Tree Diagrams) is out of date, as it is missing notation described by `pyang --tree-help` (see below). Since this draft is still in AD Review, can you please be sure to update this section, either now or along with the next update? Thanks,

Re: [netmod] yang canonical integer format

Hi Juergen, > Hi, > > the canonical format for integer types is the decimal representation. > We do not seem to have a mechanism (other than a description statement) > to declare that the canonical representation is lets say hexadecimal. > For example, EtherType

[netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

All, Lou and I were discussing how it seems unnecessary that every draft has the same boilerplate text regarding how to interpret tree diagram notations. It would be nice if drafts could instead just reference another draft that contains this information. Does this make sense? Assuming we're

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

> I think we can allow both and leave it to the document author. Either > the author uses a well known tree format and refers to its definition > or the author uses a not yet well known tree format and then it has > to be defined inline: Nice compromise, but even then it would be helpful if a

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

k Modeling (NETMOD) - Charter Current Status: Active Chairs: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> Operations and Management Area Directors: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> Oper

Re: [netmod] rfc 6087bis - stress importance of instance examples

>> I think we should encourage authors to write examples. > > +1 And also encourage authors to validate the examples > using their favorite YANG instance validation tool. Please note this from the latest 6087bis update: 4.12. Module Usage Examples Each specification that defines one

Re: [netmod] stable reference for tree diagram notation

>> This way, reader can focus more quickly on the diffs, but also this >> likely mimics what happened in reality (start with `pyang -f tree` >> and then manually edit from there). What do you think? >> > > Manually edited tree diagrams? I hope not. Perhaps we should have text > saying that

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

>> If we pick the former, it will not be possible to configure a component with >> a system controlled parent (unless you also add the system controlled parent >> to the configuration). >> [Bart Bogaert] Is there a reason to only have this parent in the state tree >> and not in the config tree?

Re: [netmod] Toolchain upgraded to yangdump-pro 16.10-5 => 16.10-5.1

Hi Benoit, You seem to know the ins and outs of many tools these days, maybe you can point me in the right direction...which tool is able to validate instance documents against YANG 1.1 modules? I've always used `yang2dsdl`, but currently it outputs "DSDL plugin supports only YANG version

Re: [netmod] 6087bis update

Thanks Andy! - update YANG tree syntax section I wasn't expecting for the pyang --tree-help output to be used verbatim, but am okay with it also. It's just different then the long-form we've been using to date... - add new sub-section on usage examples Nice addition, but should it say

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Current Status: Active Chairs: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> Operations and Management Area Directors: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> Operations and Management Area Advisor: Benoit Claise <bc

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

session on Tue or Wed in Chicago. Cheers, Mehmet > -Original Message- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 7:27 PM > To: 'Mehmet Ersue' <mer...@gmail.com>; 'Kent Watsen' > <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org > Cc: netmod-cha..

Re: [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt

or v4 and v6 into this it would work for me but I think the IETF may have missed the boat on this one. On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote: HI David, I believe an analogy to the ietf-routing module can and shou

[netmod] WG adoption poll draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

All, This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a NETMOD working group document: draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document.

Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

understand. Sue -Original Message- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:09 PM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01 > I believe this is the wrong di

Re: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value space for config vs state

Hi Lada, I agree that there is a close alignment but then I guess NETMOD should have started with a different approach, perhaps object-oriented rather than document-oriented, where configuration could play the role of "methods" intended for changing the object's state. (If Randy Presuhn was

Re: [netmod] accessible tree for rpcs?

> That's what I meant. > RPC input MUST be honored by the server or it is not implementing > correctly. > > Constraints on RPC output and notification output are for documentation > purposes. > A client could try to evaluate them with its own copies of the server's > running and >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15

> "This container describes the configuration parameters for >forwarding syslog messages to remote relays or collectors."; > > I will revise the description of these terms in the next draft. > > Thanks, > > Clyde &g

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15

>5. S1 as a whole. I'm a bit unclear what this section is doing. It >seems to be a general summary of Syslog (RFC5424). Do we need this here? > > [clyde] Suggestions appreciated. I wanted to provide a high level overview > of the syslog process. I cleaned it up a little. Move

[netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11

This is a notice to start a three week NETMOD WG last call for the document: Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 Note: Three weeks is more than needed, especially given this draft has been through Last Call

[netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15

This is a notice to start a three week NETMOD WG last call for the document: A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15 Note: Three weeks is more than needed, especially given this draft has been through Last Call

Re: [netmod] draft netmod agenda posted

>> Could all the presenters please have a slide on their module's NMDA >> compatibility status? Things to consider: >> >> - is the operational state of configured values important? >> - is there is a need to support system generated entries? >> - note: if yes to either, the module SHOULD

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11

Can the authors please start a thread on each of these open-issues ASAP? Thanks, Kent // shepherd -- Kent, what is the plan concerning the open issues listed in section 8? /js On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 06:34:28PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > This is a notice to start a three we

[netmod] draft netmod agenda posted

The draft agenda for the NETMOD sessions at IETF 99 has been posted: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/agenda/netmod/ Please let us know if any adjustments are needed. Thanks, NETMOD WG Chairs ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org

Re: [netmod] draft netmod agenda posted

Could all the presenters please have a slide on their module's NMDA compatibility status? Things to consider: - is the operational state of configured values important? - is there is a need to support system generated entries? - note: if yes to either, the module SHOULD be NMDA-compatible.

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

rences will be to RFCs, not I-Ds. That is usually what is meant by the comment below I think > I don't expect the guidelines doc is going to progress independently. Agreed. Andy On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wro

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

everything that could possibly change the behavior of the device. Andy On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Andy, I confirmed with Lou and Benoit that we want 6.23 to have the normative text within it, as w

Re: [netmod] Wg use of github (was Re: [netmod-wg/acl-model] TCP flags values not defined and only single flag allowed (#5))

I have done it both ways, and it seems that folks prefer it more when the discussion appears to be less formalized. My current/personal thoughts are, use github internally, only as an author's aid. That is, don't mention the GitHub issue to the WG list at all. I have no issue with there being

Re: [netmod] datastore conformance

> I am still concerned that the datastore conformance requirements are > under-specified and too server-centric. Okay. > The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations > do not actually require the "real" datastore identities to be used by a > server. > The server

Re: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value space for config vs state

> Do we need to call this/these scenarios out directly > in the NMDA draft? Or is this more of an FAQ item? I support putting it in the NMDA draft. Already I looked for an example in the Appendix, which I thought might be there, given how often I know the NMDA-authors discussed it. But,

Re: [netmod] nmda-guidelines-01: value space for config vs state

Related, revised-datastores-03#section-4.7 says: As a result of remnant configuration, the semantic constraints defined in the data model cannot be relied upon for , since the system may have remnant configuration whose constraints were valid with the previous configuration and that

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15

As shepherd, yang doctor, and individual contributor, following is my LC/YD review. 1. Because I know this draft will not be presented in Prague, I first checked to see if it was NMDA-compatible. The draft contains just one module, and it only contains config true nodes (no config false nodes).

Re: [netmod] draft minutes posted

The minutes have been posted: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/minutes/minutes-98-netmod-00 Kent --ORIGINAL MESSAGE-- All, (especially presenters!), Please take a look at the meeting minutes here: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-98-netmod Michael, Lou, and I

[netmod] doodle poll for schema-mount virtual interim

[please forward to other lists as needed] As discussed in Chicago, Lou and I want to schedule a virtual interim to discuss the schema-mount draft. Here is a doodle poll for it: https://doodle.com/poll/3v6q2yxes23sr7zk The dates and times have been selected by the draft authors. Please

Re: [netmod] accessible tree for rpcs?

Hi Alex, > Why would it not make sense? Firstly, it seems outside the norm. At least, I'm unaware of any other IDL that allows for such linkage. Second, I'm trying to understand the value. For instance, how does it benefit the module designer, the server developer, the client developer?

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15

Today's activity on this thread necessitates another response as well: The WG LC is closed. Authors, please address any comments that have been received, and let the WG know how the issues have been addressed, and when a version is available that is ready to be submitted for publication.

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] NMDA comments

Hi Balazs, > General: It should be more clearly describe how legacy devices that do > not wish to support NMDA should behave. They still need part of the > operational datastore, but might not (will probably not) have a separate > operational state for configuration from running/intended.

[netmod] ietf 99 minutes posted

The minutes for the IETF 99 NETMOD sessions have been posted. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-netmod Thank-you Michael for reviewing the recordings to ensure completeness and accuracy! Kent ___ netmod mailing list

[netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

Hi, During the meeting in Chicago, the NMDA authors took an action to propose some text for S4.23. After a little review, the following emerged. Yes, it's short, but was anything left anything out? =START= 4.23 Operational Data Operational data includes both config "false" nodes

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > Guidelines for > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc. Ideally 6087bis can just state what people should do, without providing a formula for

Re: [netmod] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module status and plans

Hi William, Please be aware that this draft is moving to the CCAMP WG. I don't think the ccamp-version of the draft has been posted yet, but it will be discussed in that WG (and not NETMOD) in Prague. Regards, Kent > On Jun 22, 2017, at 6:25 AM, William Lupton

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > Guidelines for > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc. Ideally 6087bis can just state what people should do, without providing a formula for

Re: [netmod] schema-mount virtual interim

=m87b080addaf71be419f67f2a893cfe94 Etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-2017-may-interim-netmod Attendees: Kent Watsen Lou Berger Lada Lhotka Martin Bjorklund Andy Bierman Acee Lindem Balazs Lengyel Joe White Xufeng Liu Igor (B?) Robert Varga Agenda: Schema Mount

Re: [netmod] schema-mount virtual interim

Gentle reminder: this Monday, May 22nd from 1pm to 3pm EST. Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-05 Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-netmod-01/session/netmod WebEx: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m87b080addaf71be419f67f2a893cfe94

Re: [netmod] schema-mount virtual interim

Some more useful links for today's virtual interim. * Etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-2017-may-interim-netmod * Slides from Chicago: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-netmod-sessb-schema-mount-00.pdf K. -ORIGINAL MESSAGE- Gentle reminder:

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-14 Signing Options

Hi Clyde, Since no concerns have been raised, should we be expecting an updated syslog draft shortly? Kent // as shepherd -- Hi, As part of the last few steps before again calling for last call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-14, we are adding certificate support to the signing-options

Re: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

ocument main body and the non-NMDA modules in an Appendix. The use of the non-NMDA model will allow temporary bridging of the time period until NMDA implementations are available. The non-NMDA module names should include ’-state’ appended. We would like to thank Kent Watsen, Lou Berger, Rob Wilton,

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

This concludes the 2-week adoption poll for yang-markup. There does not seem to be sufficient interest to move this draft forward at this time. These results are similar to comments in the Chicago meeting. Let's keep this one on the back burner for now. Thanks, Kent (and Lou) --ORIGINAL

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-bjorklund-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

This concludes the 2-week adoption poll for yang-tree-diagrams. There seems to be sufficient WG interest to move this draft forward at this time. And we have already determined that there is no known IPR pertaining to this work. Thereby this draft is now adopted as a WG chartered work item.

[netmod] schema-mount virtual interim

Dear WG, Please note that the NETMOD WG will be holding a virtual interim meeting to discuss open issues and usage scenarios for draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount on May 22nd from 1pm to 3pm EST. Please see attached Calendar invite for WebEx details. Thanks, Kent (and Lou)

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

chanisms than just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes marked as deprecated. I think you're right that this could be done post adoption. Of course others are free to disagree. I check with Kent and see what he thinks. Thanks, Lou > > Thanks, > Rob > >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

> So rfc8022bis-02 publishes the v2 module, and the the deprecated version > of the v1 module as an appendix? Lou and I were just discussing if appendix can be normative or not. I always thought no, but I haven't checked. This is a grey area, in that understanding that the old module is

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference. My comment assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course should use whatever is correct. I also don't know much about that standards body. K. - Original Message - From: "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net>

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

> A new module name mandates a new namespace, so they go together. > Abandoning the old module is fine, except leaving that module with > status "current" is not fine. IMO you need to republish the old module > as well, with everything status obsolete. Agreed. If a new module-name is used

Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

ibed here: http://www.regular-expressions.info/catastrophic.html Thanks, Rob On 13/09/2017 18:08, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Thanks. The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf > to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1 > to also list Std-

Re: [netmod] Adding system configuration to running [was: Re: Comments on NMDA-04]

> I agree with Balazs that system-created nodes in running are quite common and > the vendors doing it have no intention of changing it. Of course, what else were they going to do pre-NMDA…and also before require-instance false? Green-field deployments wouldn't be encumbered with

Re: [netmod] handling module incompatibility

>> As part of the my Routing Directorate review of >> draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis I noted that there were several incompatible >> changes being made to the ietf-l3vpn-svc module without changing the >> name. I raised this with the YANG doctors and others involved with the >> draft and it

Re: [netmod] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

My experience is that clients get the entire config in one call, and then can perform such resolutions locally. BTW, really long relative paths are harder to read than an absolution path. ../../../../../explicit-paths/explicit-path/name On 10/6/17, 5:11 PM, "netmod on behalf of Xufeng Liu"

Re: [netmod] Retrieving Information Pointed by leafref

[Sorry, fat-fingered the send button] Here's how the paths might be altered: - ../../../../../explicit-paths/explicit-path/name + /explicit-paths/explicit-path/name Back to your question, I guess that something could be done, but I'm unsure if how important it would be relative to other work

[netmod] FW: Liaison letter to IETF Netmod Working Group regarding NMDA modelling

All, We received this liaison a couple weeks ago. Although it has not yet been formally submitted, we like to provide a response anyway. As this request equally impacts both the NETMOD and NETCONF working groups, we request that that both working groups collaborate on a response. Thanks, Kent

[netmod] WG adoption poll draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-03

All, Now that we have resolved the module naming issue on the list (i.e. that keeps the original rfc module names and updates the unwanted legacy nodes to have status 'obsolete'), rather than wait for the changes to be made in the individual document, we'd like to move ahead with the adoption

Re: [netmod] Potential additions to rfc6087bis: RegEx guidelines

As Andy says, readability is #1, and it follows that a restricted subset would be more understandable. Standardizing this would require an update to RFC 7950 (read: not going to happen anytime soon). Maybe we could start with just having a tool detect when something outside the common-subset

Re: [netmod] [NETMOD] YANG Data Module

Hi Sudhanshu, Welcome to NETMOD! I'm sure the WG is looking forward to learning more about your ideas. In order to bring a YANG module to the WG's attention, you should write a draft that describes your YANG module and submit it using the draft- submission tool

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

As an author, I believe the draft is ready for publication. Regarding Robert's editorial suggestions: 1) how moving "all" like this? (i.e., must have same modules, deviations, etc.) - datastores that all share exactly the same schema, allowing data to be copied + datastores that share

Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

>> I still don't know what it means to define hierarchical data and say the >> parent is deprecated but not the descendant nodes. > > It is odd but can happen anyway. A current augmentation of something > that got deprecated likely stays current. I would hope that tools warn > if they see this

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

>> I guess the NMDA transition plan to move the child nodes to a config=true >> node >> name /restconf that has only config=false nodes in it. This seems quite >> disruptive >> and not a productive use of engineering resources, or support and customer >> re-training. > > I agree with you. We've

[netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node

With all the deprecating of "-state" trees going on these days, the 'status' statement is getting lots of use. I understand that some feel that the status statement needs to be placed on every node, since it is not inherited. This sentiment likely stems from RFC 7950 stating "If no status is

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

Hi Acee, > Ok - it is less painful if we only have to deprecate the *-state nodes. Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's? I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on these nmda-update drafts. > However, what about secondary and tertiary

[netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

[changing subject line, was "upcoming adoptions"] We've been primarily focused on updating modules by deprecating the /foo-state tree in situ. This is what the nmda-guidelines draft said to do and is much of what the "status statement needed on every node" thread regards. However, the RTG YANG

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

>> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates.  Particularly, >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate >> value for configured nodes.  These modules have the misfortune of >> having

Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

>>Does this mean you're okay reposting your ID similar to Martin's? >>I ask as a chair interested in starting the adoption process on >>these nmda-update drafts. > > I would hope this is not a prerequisite? We are evaluating how bad this > will be. I’d ask how many implementations there are of

Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-17

> I understand that draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model should be on my plate very > soon (waiting for the WriteUp) Yep, this one's on me - I'm looking into it today. > In terms of YANG doctor > review, > Kent,

[netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

This starts a two-week working group last call on: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14 Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns. We are particularly interested in

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi Benoit, BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability metric that applies to BCPs. YANG still seems to be evolving, so I can only imagine yet another update to this document in the not too distant future. Does that disqualify it in any way? Kent On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM,

[netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues

Clyde, all, In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit for AD review: 1. Idnits found the following: Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). **

Re: [netmod] Backward Compatibility Question

Hi Joey, Your proposal looks fine to me, since it doesn't change the semantics of the data model. Note that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-11 says: o Any set of data definition nodes may be replaced with another set of syntactically and semantically equivalent nodes.

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

The Last Call for this document has completed with *no* responses, other than Benoit's question regarding if it should be a BCP, which also had no responses, other than my own wondering if YANG (and hence the guidelines) was stable enough. Lou and I discussed. It is our opinion that, given

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

e > >> original module's name > >> - Change the namespace by postpending "-state" to the original > >> namespace value > >> - Change the prefix by postpending "-s" to the original prefix > >> value &

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15

Hi Clyde, Trimming down to just the active discussion points. > 12. S3, P8: I'm having trouble understanding the pseudocode. What >happens if S and/or F are not present? Can S or F ever not be >present? - looking at the tree diagram, it seems like they might >

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. K. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 25, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > As part of the preparation for WG Last Call: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

> rather confusing, since this notation is not defined anywhere. A bit, yes. I tried to get the syntax defined in RD, but my co-authors didn't think it was necessary. I acquiesced as well just to move things along. > If the term 'state' added any value, we would use it more often, but I

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

>> I know that we tend to be sloppy in meetings and often in emails but >> in written RFCs (specifications) I would personally prefer to use a >> single term. > > So change it in the RD draft to the term we actually use "operational > datastore". A lot of effort went into defining the terms.

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

g., for typedef > definitions) > - modify any imports, used for leafrefs or identityrefs, to > import the -state version of the module > - remove any 'typedef' or 'identity' definitions > - prefix any uses of the typedefs and identities accordingly > -

Re: [netmod] rfc6087bis S4.23 replacement text

On 8/25/17, 2:21 PM, "Andy Bierman" > wrote: > Obviously NMDA cannot be used for objects where the configuration value set > and the operstate value set differ, such as with the interface > admin-status/oper-status. > Do you want a sentence added

[netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

I'd like to start a discussion about adopting this draft...or something like it (see below). The primary driver for wanting to expedite this draft is that it is being discussed as a required aspect of a chartered NETCONF WG effort to define a new encoding for YANG's 'notification' statement.

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

> I am not sure any new construct is needed at all. > The current definition covers it. Right, this is what is currently being done, but it is neither intuitive nor conducive to downstream extensions… > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040. > There was no concern about

Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

>> Gotcha. What do other people think, would a "uses-yang-data" >> statement be generally more useful? > > But does this mean we also do uses-yang-container, uses-yang-list, > uses-yang-xyz to other definitions as well? I do not think this is > desirable and why would yang-data be any

[netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hey folks, As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing RFCs to align them with NMDA. The first batch have been published as individual drafts: 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 2.

Re: [netmod] ietf-routing or ietf-routing-2? module naming convention for NMDA transition. Re: upcoming adoptions

I agree - let's keep the module name and mark the nodes obsolete. Kent // any hat Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 09/10/2017 22:06, Benoit Claise wrote: > > On 10/6/2017 6:01 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 06/10/2017 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> Benoit

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi Benoit, et al., As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I know that Lou does as well (I just asked him). As co-chair, reading Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026, I feel that we need to formally run the decision past the WG. So, without further ado: This is the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

ine canonical order of YANG statements. Thanks --- Alex -Original Message----- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:22 AM To: netmod@ietf.org Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087...@ietf.org Subject: [netmo

[netmod] can a 'must' statement point to a 'choice' node?

I'm getting mixed results from pyang and yanglint. Can the XPath used in a 'must' statement point to a 'choice' node? In the below YANG snippet from the zerotouch draft, the idea is that, if at least one URI is specified, then a hash needs to be present as well, but any hash is okay,

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5157)

Added. https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/30 K. On 10/23/17, 1:41 PM, "Andy Bierman" > wrote: Hi, To be clear, I am withdrawing this errata because existing implementations may not accept a numeric literal in an instance-identifier. I

[netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

[resending] All, This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00. Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two drafts [2] should reveal just this.

[netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

All, This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00. Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two drafts [2] should reveal just this. The working

[netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

All, This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00. Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two drafts [2] should reveal just this. The working group

Re: [netmod] Joel Jaeggli as a third NETMOD co-chair

Indeed, congrats! K. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 15, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Lou Berger > wrote: Joel, Welcome aboard! Lou On 12/15/2017 12:21 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, A lot is happening these days in the world of data modeling-driven

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

All, This last call is now closed. Since the comments were minor, this last call is considered successful. Authors, Please address any/all comments received during the LC. Once you've published the version that you believe addresses all comments/pending changes, I'll perform

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

All, This last call is now closed. Since the comments were minor, this last call is considered successful. Authors, Please address any/all comments received during the LC. Once you've published the version that you believe addresses all comments/pending changes, I'll perform

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >