Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 26 September 2018 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 A042E130E2A for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Wv_yRWrzQTlz for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23234130E18 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1081; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1537956382; x=1539165982; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fvrOLs6OfLqxIZDWCKA0hCSvOk4RB50LcW3MOnlIBRU=; b=WTl8o+yNLx+KVxlrc2s9jo4bklYdrKjKxnRmIHfia1sCSx1aKpDkKps6 kUnYL8JgZ4ECxgvFvURxVvUd++ocVhdKtBB/GjdfwKK79FqRW/2oeI5q4 z+vEr78ptorsNlJrmPqZ54SrCDa5jW16OcLMkyqfE8PXK/oX9ZDRM5tL6 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANAABxWatb/xbLJq1aGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBU4NeEoQciHSNMC2WT4F6C4RsAoQaNhYBAwEBAgEBAm0ohTkBBSMVUQsOCgICJgICVwYBDAgBAReDBoIConGBLoR3hSSBC4oGgUE/gRIngmuHf4JXAo5AjkcJkCcGF4FGhzOGO4hwhhKGD4FJAi+BVTMaCBsVgyiQVD6NcgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,305,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="6806410"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Sep 2018 10:06:20 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.158] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-158.cisco.com [10.63.23.158]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w8QA6JOH015626; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:06:20 GMT
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <20180924.093612.1791958587714330227.mbj@tail-f.com> <A1DF23A4-3D00-43D7-B121-D9F567B2A43F@juniper.net> <020f01d454ae$2e41e4a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CABCOCHSATfi4Nq3XLGL65Kj4R_gWTFSf6H0v8qD8DE4aYOpDiQ@mail.gmail.com> <674F5961-D956-4BD1-8AD0-44FE68150070@juniper.net> <20180925213145.r72ybqbuv5qy4dct@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <5ED013C2-0D95-4B09-B0F5-D715DD58BE45@juniper.net> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B052880@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20180926063205.occ7oo5jxfnblvg5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B053848@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20180926092843.lzvxnh3ajnamfqxa@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b9f3776a-fa84-7ede-df84-ed1cb335303b@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:06:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180926092843.lzvxnh3ajnamfqxa@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.158, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-158.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JsudG-qnm3mZsSdDUcyTZBuc0z4>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:06:29 -0000

Hi Juergen,

Yes, I think that updating RFC 6991 would be useful, if there are types 
missing.

Thanks,
Rob


On 26/09/2018 10:28, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 08:00:26AM +0000, Qin Wu wrote:
>> I wonder whether you really need a uint32 range of hours in the OAM models.
>> 	
>> [Qin]: not necessary for OAM model, but It may be used in some other models that require unint32 range of hours.
> Authors may not want to depend on ietf-lime-time-types for generic
> types for time periods, nor am I sure the solution there is a simple
> solution.
>
> Perhaps its time to see whether it makes sense to spin an update of
> RFC 6991 to add definitions that are apparently missing. Aftert 5
> years this may be a reasonable thing to do. We should not hold off
> work because of this but we may allow authors to transition to common
> definitions if what they do now is compatible with a common solution
> underway. I would be willing to allocate some of my time to an update
> of RFC 6991 if the WG believes this is useful.
>
> /js
>