Subject: [netmod] netmod virtual interim meeting 2014-12-03 details

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:40:56 +0100

Hi,

the webex information was posted to the list and I am not repeating it
here.  We will use this etherpad instance:

http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-netmod-virtual-interim-2014-12-03?useMonospaceFont=true

Here is the list of things I think we have to work through:

* Y09 introduce optional keys

  Martin did writeup Y09-03. On 2014-11-19, we agreed to Y09-03. This
  should be a quick check that we are still in sync on this. There was
  quite some mailing list discussion as well. It seems this boils down
  to the question whether expanding the syntax of instance identifiers
  falls into the scope of YANG 1.1.

* Y16 module advertisement optimization

  Martin has done his action item and we should try to decide between
  Y16-01, Y16-02, and Y16-03.

* Y18 fix "when" expression context problem

  Did Martin complete the action item? If so, can we wrap this up?

* Y59 restrict use of 64-bit numbers in XPath expressions

  New issue, no reaction on the mailing list so far. Should we propose
  adoption as a bug fix / clarification issue?

* Y25 make enum numbering purely informative and optional

  Last time we discussed this we reached rough concensus for
  Y25-01. Shall we try to resolve this on the list? If so, JS to
  create a thread, e.g., to VRFY adoption of Y25-01 and then we will
  see.

* Y26 allow mandatory nodes in augment

  Discussion on the list went into philosophical aspects. The question
  is whether someone can write down rules in which conditions adding
  mandatory nodes in an augment is OK. Volunteers for a homework?

* Y58 associate an actions with a data node

  Verification failed since there is no NACM support for actions nor
  are actions part of the NETCONF architecture (Andy).  Phil questions
  the need for actions since everything can be done with RPCs. Changed
  back to OPEN. Need to decide how to proceed with this one.

* Y34 remove/deprecate/replace the 'anyxml' statement

  Quite some debate on the mailing list. Apparently some think anydata
  means 'any data in the encoding used' while others think 'anydata is
  data that can be modelled in YANG'. Andy suggested to restrict what
  can be in anyxml. We also see differences in opinion what the
  function of an encoding really is. Another obstacle are the lexical
  representation rules for instance-identifier (9.13.3 of RFC 6020).

* Y49 clarify nested submodule behavior

  Need to discuss Martin's solution proposal Y49-03.

* Y57 non-unique leaf-list

  [...]

* Y45 better conformance mechanism

  [...]

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:47:41 +0100

Hi,

I added a new alternative solution Y49-04 and I’d like to discuss it.

Lada

> On 03 Dec 2014, at 15:40, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:49:47 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

I am sorry for the late notice, but I am travelling and cannot join
the meeting today.  Some quick comments inline.

>   Did Martin complete the action item? If so, can we wrap this up?

No I missed this one.

>   create a thread, e.g., to VRFY adoption of Y25-01 and then we will

I am still against this.  It doesn't solve any realy problem, and it
removes a feature from 1.0.

/martin