Re: [Netconf] FW: [netmod] WG: Adoption Poll: draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-01
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 January 2018 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D111C12EC26 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:36:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bO_18YgmMfAk for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1244912EBF8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:36:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AA020095 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:42:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F6380C6E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:36:26 -0500 (EST)
To: netconf@ietf.org
References: <78d9e3d5-e096-49cf-f3c5-acaf9fc8303a@labn.net> <CEF47075-CC65-4E4E-AF87-E8B8D3D22496@juniper.net>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <b714aae9-d70b-1956-b37d-acdad5c102ba@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:36:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CEF47075-CC65-4E4E-AF87-E8B8D3D22496@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JMgQntGJQOdgOHoO7dHicpKG9As6c2kkE"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/AoXTpvKXGfBN5uIehlM8J-o65uA>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] FW: [netmod] WG: Adoption Poll: draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-01
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:36:56 -0000
> This is the start of a *two* week poll on making > draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext a working group document. Please send > email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If > indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If Hi, I have read yang-data-ext. It seems critical that the document be adopted so that we may reference it in the ANIMA WG voucher documents. In particular we are using exactly the functionality of augmenting a data structure from one protocol to another from document to document. The current augment mechanism works, but only because we have constrained ourselves to what it offers, having a more general mechanism is very welcome. I would appreciate a more complex example, and I wonder if the example given (with foo.yang and bar.yang) really belongs withing the YANG description itself.
- [Netconf] FW: [netmod] WG: Adoption Poll: draft-b… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [netmod] WG: Adoption Poll: draft-b… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] FW: [netmod] WG: Adoption Poll: dra… Michael Richardson