Re: [Netconf] WGLC on restconf-notif-08

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@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 2DBA1130E3A for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:34:55 -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, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 IJDR720bQnrj for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E71B128A6E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2624; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540492493; x=1541702093; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=+NF+mnB3QSu4R/5+AGKD3Oww8J3kh7s8O8q5N8Q9h08=; b=flnmsrbZ2Dck2cee0nF4OFbKyo0EauAxD5sC839hzj8BxfmYvb3mono+ drsmKuy+VvuGcb3J/NOo+5qea+Tntsh6N3DgXnZ7vKEB9kJwe2gx67ONj GCRPt2wFYTqMb3ze+kExXdcRHyuX5xhQZ6qyw+KtkzjwrPus24SlwMEoD Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAAAmDNJb/4QNJK1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwIBAQEBAQsBggRmfygKg2uUADCBaCWXHIF6CwEBIwm?= =?us-ascii?q?DekYCF4J6ITYLDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhToBAQEBAgEjEUUQAgEIDgoCAiYCAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?wFRACBA4FG4MGAYF5CA+nVoEuhTuEXQWBC4pbF4FBP4ERJwwTgkyCNmUCAYF?= =?us-ascii?q?AAQEeF4JsMYImAokihTiQHAkCkHsYkEOWYgIRFIEmJAwlgVVwFWUBgkGLGYU?= =?us-ascii?q?+bwGBJ4lCgR8BgR4BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,425,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="474826896"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2018 18:34:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9PIYqEn000578 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:34:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:34:51 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:34:51 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WGLC on restconf-notif-08
Thread-Index: AQHUXC8dqc/ZdIehM0Ol7lZ9+zKBhqUaNbYAgAATmACAFT+vgIAAcrAAgAAlRQCAAEgXgIAAEi6A
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:34:51 +0000
Message-ID: <242802B1-7124-45C1-923F-5DAB949EE62C@cisco.com>
References: <A19424BA-7F59-4B5B-96EB-635AFB217309@juniper.net> <20181025.085820.439553379534542406.mbj@tail-f.com> <ECF2B40C-AE54-4310-84AA-E6678FE24A55@cisco.com> <20181025.152945.1091370192742338773.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181025.152945.1091370192742338773.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2DD9F0D7E655BF4198ADD12672DD999E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/WlE0ysWkrRCeR96bOmHQ50Q0F1o>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] WGLC on restconf-notif-08
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:34:55 -0000

Thanks Martin. So this is using the module name instead of using the module prefix? 

Regards,
Reshad.


´╗┐On 2018-10-25, 9:29 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:

    "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Hi,
    > 
    > By Juergen's proposal are you referring to new xpath/ypath definition
    > for context-independent encoding in 6991bis? And SN should wait for
    > 6991bis?
    
    No I meant that SN would adopt Juergen's proposal.  This can be done
    today.
    
    
    /martin
    
    
    
    > If so, why not go with Martin's alternative A?
    > 
    > What do we do about existing drafts/RFCs which use yang:xpath1.0? I
    > don't know how many there are (only one which comes to mind is
    > schema-mount).
    > 
    > FYI, looks like this issue was brought up a few years ago.
    > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg12906.html
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Reshad.
    > 
    > On 2018-10-25, 2:58 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
    > 
    >     Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
    >     > 
    >     > > Since this is an existing issue (not caused by the -notif drafts),
    >     > > if the outcome is slow can we just remove this example to be able
    >     > > to advance those docs?
    >     > 
    >     > It appears that the outcome is slow.  Any objection to removing the
    >     > example so the Last Call can close?
    >     
    >     Yes, I object to that.  I think we need to address the issue, rather
    >     than pretending it isn't an issue.  If we can't figure out what an
    >     example looks like, how is an implementor supposed to get this right?
    >     
    >     IMO SN should adopt the solution proposed by Juergen, and the example
    >     updated.
    >     
    >     
    >     /martin
    >     
    >