OK, thanks, that's clear.
I *think* (I was on the call where this was discussed) that it was exactly
the worry about importing a whole module that led to the suggestion of
having a separate module just for common types. As I understand it, there
was a desire to have a common type used in several
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: 28 May 2020 14:29
Hey Tom,
Is there a typo in your email? You said...
> So carving out the current types (etc) will likely lead to a bad
> outcome; it is a question of looking carefully across the range
> of documents to see what is, or is likely to be common.
I
I have completed my first draft of the shepherd write-up of this document. In
the abstract I noticed it says that this document defines “YANG modules” when
it only defines “a YANG module” now. Can text referring to the plural modules
be updated?
Also, any other review of the write-up would
Hey Tom,
Is there a typo in your email? You said...
> So carving out the current types (etc) will likely lead to a bad
> outcome; it is a question of looking carefully across the range
> of documents to see what is, or is likely to be common.
I wondered whether you intended a "not" in there
Hi Tom,
>>The four documents are not spelled out but referred to in shorthand and while
>>I think I know which are intended, that IMHO needs spelling out.
The involved modules which could potentially share a common Yang service types
are:
- L3 VPN Customer Service YANG Model (L3SM)
Dear OPSAWG colleagues,
Please find bellow the proposed agenda with the topics to
discuss in today's LxVPNs Network Modules call. Comments and suggestions
welcomed.
L3NM (40min)
- Service Types common module discussions: Proposal of
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG
Authors :
