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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@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 34F7B130E58 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, 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 pwIWQF_rqhsW for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E061130E3D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2580; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540474357; x=1541683957; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=p8eLKA00GN0mK1IKuNaLcWW810GPx8byibNae106oZU=; b=eEG5B91/ROeLeL+BvskfRbeiFkN0roUT/FNj/mRjpmLMkLI6vRniwoBf 1f4HJNCuIMaGZwTT+Msc9dPZQa4LH3vT3Dqt7NBRD9nlgOxlC87kEyVXj tJB+Ude/AesVhflflzIVhmd8ACbqvY50XGAoQQQpJd+/KwTrRQWMsyxLj Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ANAABJxdFb/5pdJa1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUgMBAQEBAQsBggRmfygKg2uUADCCDYNAk1yBegsBARg?= =?us-ascii?q?LhANGAheCeSE1DA0BAwEBAgEBAm0cDIU6AQEBAQIBAQEhEToLBQsCAQgOBwM?= =?us-ascii?q?CAiYCAgIlCxUQAgQBDQUIE4MHgXkID6ccgS6KHAWBC4pbF4FBP4ERgxKCNmU?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQGBQAEBNYJsglcCiSKVVAkCkHMgkEOWYgIRFIEmHwI0gVVwFTuCbIsZhT5?= =?us-ascii?q?vAYoEgR+BHwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,424,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="469494731"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2018 13:32:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (xch-rtp-002.cisco.com [64.101.220.142]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9PDWZlG014271 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:32:36 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (64.101.220.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:32:35 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:32:35 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WGLC on restconf-notif-08
Thread-Index: AQHUbGbLqc/ZdIehM0Ol7lZ9+zKBhqUv9OzQ
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:32:34 +0000
Message-ID: <957364c38ddd4b5dabfe150cf516595c@XCH-RTP-013.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:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.142, xch-rtp-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/hL5RcxiduJCeechwD2A0S1bLWVc>
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 13:32:40 -0000

> From: Martin Bjorklund,  October 25, 2018 9:30 AM
> 
> "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.

This works for me.   Can you provide a proposal for the desired YANG object text?  

Eric

> /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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf