Subject: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:51:38 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
        Author          : Martin Bjorklund
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09.txt
	Pages           : 201
	Date            : 2015-12-11

Abstract:
   YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
   state data, remote procedure calls, and notifications for network
   management protocols like the Network Configuration Protocol
   (NETCONF).

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 22:56:08 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

This version addresses all issues reported on -08 during (and after)
the WGLC period.  We didn't reach full agreement on all these issues,
but I believe the document reflects WG consensus.

/martin

[email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:31:50 +0100

Hi,

I propose an additional change to the new text in sec. 7.17, paragraph 7:

OLD

    If the augmentation adds mandatory nodes…

NEW

    If the augmentation adds mandatory configuration nodes…

Unknown nodes appearing in state data, RPC output or notification may possibly break an old client, too, but that would happen even if the nodes are not defined as mandatory. Therefore, I don't see any reason for applying the restriction on non-config data.

Lada

> On 11 Dec 2015, at 22:51, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 

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

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:37:02 +0100

Sorry, I sent my message by mistake also to internet-drafts and i-d-announce mailing lists. Please remove them from your reply.

Lada
 
> On 12 Dec 2015, at 08:31, Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0100 (CET)

Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Unknown nodes appearing in state data, RPC output or notification may
> possibly break an old client, too, but that would happen even if the
> nodes are not defined as mandatory. Therefore, I don't see any reason
> for applying the restriction on non-config data.

I agree, this makes sense.

/martin