Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Mon, 06 August 2018 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 921D8130E58; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 bm4--aT0dEct; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33752130E23; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108160.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w76GxYgj010879; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:02:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=IxLXH5op2Rig3/bDu02kZU9poYB4jNmEnCvPqoZh5Kw=; b=c276i9hW8Up57mVAKAR/dDMN3wzdIjg8fMSmgqReS5sQSb3Jm7Luf01YgQjFvw3+C60a /0lQKjx9UfcYN6wkAgAf74i/baICCtLeKWwycHiQ7G1LL+u2ChhhWnJKeYYvA3rU4hKJ vKtUfBusMyFuAnsZexyNLoOWv9umw4QWeidSCO5IfNAZMCE2WPo5iQPH4ywh5FqqPR9S IIbQzYPf1J/wdiiyYfITwsOpUgeU9NAzoKwXPP6Jgab1DwudIlELIin78IuR+oCHhf3W UBwiy9S6xUCfo/ltM8nz9Kb4FcvYOmBJT+2d1DW31WeZVYwSaNq3Ygg+v0DC2TghoEmq 7g==
Received: from nam02-cy1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02lp0054.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.54]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kppa4gjkx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Aug 2018 10:02:53 -0700
Received: from DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.109.202) by DM6PR05MB4026.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.71.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1038.14; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:02:51 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e0bc:6a82:571d:258]) by DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e0bc:6a82:571d:258%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1038.019; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:02:51 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?
Thread-Index: AQHUKbd2gxK9WoMf0kWoD5voFWQc9qSw5SCAgAHS/oA=
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:02:50 +0000
Message-ID: <F26138DC-A5B6-4EC6-AEDE-2F94DD1A3B7E@juniper.net>
References: <05ee68cd-ccc0-6803-6c71-b3952ee5608d@cisco.com> <CABCOCHRtg9jB0=b5bPPT3MS0QJcwgAY24Fg0RewXhPMR8Y+O0w@mail.gmail.com> <958669b9-c523-3c43-eca4-fbc255fc1bc8@cisco.com> <20180805.111123.2123994471181114333.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180805.111123.2123994471181114333.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM6PR05MB4026; 6:VvK9IgVdM7mVc+W9o/Nxbk2YCM5BYXgpM0aBjrvctZmV9RGPBmH7Rep+K8VpVZ9hu+lY/NXBfPz2E9a/1rPfTv/BOujkd2UEDqKSoZIT5UugpvMir9m3gBhoJlnlqXzu42hveD4eT4wSE5E/n4SRGDLOt0129TnmQFABUnzurxUZGHu77i61fYCtra3zLdyIDLjDq0K+e+2orNlW8DQOBtF9/uvgfjFpoCh5/K4kmeN7/Pqi0IoEisrcSUJJ0r4XACnsFIaXy5aM/CVO9cHoOoMXgy91+pWornTYFO4r19pSqBSdJRF7+f9rgc1d2TmFsF/ycGqTLYgnCazYMsx/f+GCdlBbhNAC8CfeBwr4CRAURyFmMuNbSqbYaofAn0ujAqDnARdF3qdmzD096i7Ys7ev7zLzfZ1l4ql3ZpuoM5eHqTy01M7DjPTx5M+2MfmZaM2ZTI8NuY5NaPATF57Z9w==; 5:Km92KlAL6tNUAj5lOsMf3Zhx0v1eTyp+4slJ+aEfD0xs9rY6W7S7E24ZAHXLg0FKf5GeH+vxR2s6QFjOl1sXiJK1cXsl8QfBKCDTxVYOstnslM1A1kW4i3P9dFOotWOBXfM5p+2YiMt0j/IHzeglGDFm/I3ZT5+5CQ/6waCZQqI=; 7:o5TXBxkFdenX2tjMflKCDo/MDRtliLoJ/ddqc/bTPmH2ppt2lmbapWA3fSlVImJFVWZkJ4bv2RTWRqkSiLmHmd6H7O/zVJdM3Ndjf8KpJB2BRjOF1AB54OUy6MsWzKuOr2Dy2Gs/HEvWqpkgFOE04OKbf6g5s1ma6A1g5yHhcszVMMBhGHtAPweyZ1xurVdefaCyEHi8qRRCmGEG/NnxGsWsof8/J8fmiL4NX3lYIiZOIWCA1KbE0YulCYi86PNt
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6d21b4ab-c1a9-44d4-c2a8-08d5fbbe7197
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652040)(8989117)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990107)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR05MB4026;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4026:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB40262A6C3AFE07281B99C5B0A5200@DM6PR05MB4026.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(10436049006162)(100405760836317)(95692535739014);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231311)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:DM6PR05MB4026; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM6PR05MB4026;
x-forefront-prvs: 07562C22DA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(316002)(6512007)(6306002)(7736002)(6436002)(476003)(5250100002)(229853002)(575784001)(6486002)(86362001)(6246003)(486006)(25786009)(4326008)(82746002)(110136005)(36756003)(99286004)(58126008)(305945005)(54906003)(256004)(2900100001)(14444005)(53936002)(2616005)(26005)(966005)(561944003)(6506007)(53546011)(8936002)(76176011)(102836004)(97736004)(105586002)(81156014)(81166006)(5660300001)(478600001)(8676002)(83716003)(33656002)(14454004)(2906002)(93886005)(66066001)(446003)(6116002)(3846002)(11346002)(186003)(68736007)(106356001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR05MB4026; H:DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: KjK4OhvU4ghKwVQKXp4Y+/JwhdnYppHAvbvcV2eoSP/7vzTYKHrR+O0EoPqMudkcvfgubFppi7kv5uPuRLg5ARsfi6ox/lY5Z9zGuIqv1TcuDfuIMCru1vxGuN+QlJMmH68hCsi/KR7bMe10DCl/t+hysnE7TrnrO2awNsD3OOfpdcYejaLYLCEGSwgMKl91nLY4m9f1/CJlz85KH7sdtDbaFTwhvgQNDRztZQ8ee9rqHV7fjg2YwhNC53uebsFOK1wve299R/Vu6WFE2Sg9oE6nlHcRAIMCHuboC31QPQvoACoF9tEM4JSOsAhOyRgAJtMDaSR7g1edUT4mEM+12UVn2vZdUn+Uxig26YwBF6U=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D8F50709CD3F8E4C9F8A12832C3BC2D7@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6d21b4ab-c1a9-44d4-c2a8-08d5fbbe7197
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Aug 2018 17:02:50.9131 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4026
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-08-06_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808060176
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/iSnDEokoyBjopr252qTvPbdKkUM>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 17:03:03 -0000

[top-posting for lack of time]

Hi Martin,

Interesting that you view the "transport" leaf as where the decision is 
made.  I suppose that is the case now, but I always viewed the leaf as 
a somewhat artificial "anchor" that was added only to support the "when"
expression to assert homogeneity.  The 

On that, note that I merely said that I was sympathetic to the POV; I'm
not convinced that there is a problem allowing heterogeneity, as what's
been posted thus far for why it might be a [performance?] problem was 
conjecture.

A fully cooked example would be helpful here, but I think you want:

  <receivers>
    <receiver>
      <name>foo</name>
      <ex:param1>...</ex:param1>
      <ex:param2>...</ex:param2>
      <ex:param3>...</ex:param3>
    </receiver>
  </receivers>

whereas I was thinking that there would be a container, e.g.

  <receivers>
    <receiver>
      <name>foo</name>
      <ex:udp-pub-sub>
        <param1>...</param1>
        <param2>...</param2>
        <param3>...</param3>
      </ex:udp-pub-sub>
    </receiver>
  </receivers>

which acts as the transport-selector, and hence homogeneity (if needed),
could be via a "must" expression that ensures that there is only one
such descendent, other than "name", across the receivers.  This is what
that "must" expression I proffered last week was trying to do.  If we 
can do this, I think the model simplifies, as then the [artificial?] 
"transport" and "encoding" leaves, and the "when" expressions, wouldn't
be needed to still assert the homogeneity.

Thoughts?

Kent // contributor




Robert Wilton <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/08/2018 17:09, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com
> > <mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 31/07/2018 21:31, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Eric Voit (evoit)
> >>     <evoit@cisco.com <mailto:evoit@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>         > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, July 31, 2018 1:48 PM
> >>         >
> >>         > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:41:42PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund
> >>         wrote:
> >>         > >
> >>         > > The empty mandatory choice does provide value since it
> >>         requires that
> >>         > > some transport-specific parameters are configured. 
> >>         However, can we
> >>         > > assume that all transports require configuration
> >>         parameters here?
> >>         >
> >>         > Can you have a receiver without any transport parameters?
> >>         >
> >>         > > It is probably safest to not have a mandatory choice, and
> >>         instead
> >>         > > ensure that each transport augements the proper params --
> >>         and since
> >>         > > this is YANG 1.1, the transport params that are augmented
> >>         can actually
> >>         > > be marked as mandatory.
> >>         >
> >>         > Frankly, an empty mandatory choice quite clearly says "this
> >>         is incomplete and
> >>         > unusable without an augmentation".
> >>
> >>         My read above is the YANG doctor's position is that we should
> >>         *not* use the empty mandatory choice.  Let me know if I got
> >>         this wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >>     I do not think a consensus call has been done yet, but I agree
> >>     with Juergen
> >>     and already raised the point that YANG conformance does not handle a
> >>     "MUST augment" use-case very well.
> >     I think that "empty choice + mandatory true" it is OK from a
> >     conformance perspective.  The concept seems similar to an
> >     programmatic interface, abstract class, or even the abstract
> >     identity idea that has been proposed for YANG.  If a server
> >     implements the module but no augments of the choice then it cannot
> >     be configured because the constraint will always fail.  Andy, is
> >     your concern that tooling will warn that part of the model is
> >     unusable?
> >
> >
> > That is possible.
> > I agree with Juergen that a mandatory empty choice clearly indicates
> > that the module is incomplete
> > and unusable on its own.  Is that a feature?
> Yes, making that indication is the whole purpose of adding the
> "mandatory: true" to the empty choice.  Note, that I see that the
> "mandatory true" is there to say that every configured subscription
> must have a transport configured, which if true, doesn't seem
> unreasonable.

Note that the model already has a 'transport' leaf that is mandatory.

The choice is an explicit placeholder for transport-specific
additional parameters.

This proposed design is slightly different than the design in
ietf-interfaces; in interfaces we have:

   leaf type { ... }
   // type-specific augmentations here

For example (from the RFC):

   augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
     when "if:type = 'ianaift:ethernetCsmacd'";

     container ethernet {
       leaf duplex {
         ...
       }
     }
   }


In the notif model the proposal is:

  leaf transport { ... }

  ...
    choice transport-specific-params {
      // transport-specific augmentations here
    }


Note that if the choice is not marked as mandatory, the resulting
model will be less strict / useful compared to using a design like in
the interfaces model (w/o the choice).  To demonstrate, suppose we
have a transport 'example-udp' that needs a mandatory 'address' and an
optional 'port'.  With the choice we'd have:

  augment '/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver'
        + '/sn:transport-specific-params' {
    when 'derived-from(../../../../transport, "ex:example-udp")';

    case example-udp-params {
      leaf address {
        mandatory true;
        ...
      }
      leaf port {
        ...
      }
    }
  }
  
If the choice is not mandatory, the model would allow a client to
configure the transport leaf to 'example-udp', but not configure an
address.


Without the choice, we'd do:

  augment '/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver'
    when 'derived-from(../../../transport, "ex:example-udp")';

    leaf address {
      mandatory true;
      ...
    }
    leaf port {
      ...
    }
  }
  

In this case, or if the choice is mandatory, the model would require
the client to configure an address if the transport is 'example-udp',
which is what we want.


But if the choice is marked as mandatory, *all* transports MUST define
some transport-specific parameters, even if that is not needed
(unclear if this will ever happen...)


Thus, I prefer Eric's original model w/o the choice.  The choice is
supposed to be clever, but might end up being confusing, and I don't
think it adds any value anyway.




/martin

> I.e. my main point is that I don't have an issue with
> this generic YANG design.
> 
> In this particular instance, I'm also fine if "mandatory: true" is
> left out, but I don't really agree with writing the equivalent of
> "mandatory: true" in the description, that seems like a poor
> compromise.
> 
> However, this is probably all bike-shedding.  I think that any of the
> discussed solutions is acceptable, as long as it is obvious to the
> readers of the YANG modules that a case statement must be provided for
> it to be useful, and I make the assumption that sane vendors won't
> enable the "configured" feature, if there is no actual way of
> configuring usable subscriptions.
> 
> Perhaps Eric can propose his preferred choice, and we can see if
> anyone still objects, otherwise maybe we can move on?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >     I have to say that much prefer the option of putting "mandatory:
> >     true" in the choice than "MUST provide an implementation" in the
> >     description because the former is machine readable whilst the
> >     latter is not.
> >
> >     However, I would also be fine not to have the "mandatory: true",
> >     but with the choice description to state something along the lines
> >     that the empty choice is to allow for augmentations of different
> >     transports, and configured subscriptions may not be usable unless
> >     at least one transport case statement is available."  But perhaps
> >     some implementation will provide the flexibility of defining a
> >     single transport for all subscriptions (if this is feasible).
> >
> >     One other observation that could affect the decision here is that
> >     YANG allows "mandatory: true" to be removed in a future revision
> >     in a backwards compatible way, but doesn't allow it to be added.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Rob
> >
> >
> >>
> >>     I prefer the MUST be in the description-stmt for the choice,
> >>     instead of "mandatory true". (I prefer SHOULD but if the WG wants
> >>     MUST)
> >>
> >>
> >>     Andy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>         That would mean that each transport document supporting
> >>         configured subscriptions would then augment transport
> >>         specific parameters to
> >>         "/subscriptions/subscription/receivers/receiver".  And
> >>         (assuming the "single transport" decision of IETF100 isn't
> >>         changed), that the identity "transport" could be leveraged to
> >>         enforce that only a single transport specific set of
> >>         credentials are associated with a receiver.
> >>
> >>         A sample YANG augmentation for NETCONF would then look like:
> >>
> >>         module ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications {
> >>
> >>           prefix nsn;
> >>
> >>           import ietf-netconf-client { prefix ncc; }
> >>           import ietf-subscribed-notifications { prefix sn; }
> >>
> >>           identity netconf {
> >>             base sn:transport;
> >>             base sn:inline-address;
> >>             description
> >>               "NETCONF is used as a transport for notification
> >>         messages and
> >>                state change notifications.";
> >>           }
> >>
> >>           augment
> >>         "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
> >>            when 'derived-from(../../../transport, "nsn:netconf")';
> >>            description
> >>               "This augmentation allows NETCONF specific parameters
> >>         to be
> >>               exposed for a receiver.";
> >>             leaf netconf-endpoint {
> >>               type leafref {
> >>                 path
> >>         "/ncc:netconf-client/ncc:initiate/ncc:netconf-server" +
> >>                         "/ncc:endpoints/ncc:endpoint/ncc:name";
> >>               }
> >>               mandatory true;
> >>               description
> >>                 "Remote client which need to initiate the NETCONF
> >>         transport if
> >>                 an existing NETCONF session from that client is not
> >>         available.";
> >>             }
> >>           }
> >>         }
> >>
> >>         Which results in:
> >>           +--rw subscriptions
> >>              +--rw subscription*
> >>                 +--rw transport         transport {configured}?
> >>                 +--rw receivers
> >>                    +--rw receiver*
> >>                       +--rw nsn:netconf-endpoint leafref
> >>
> >>         Eric
> >>
> >>
> >>         > /js
> >>         >         > --
> >>         > Juergen Schoenwaelder  Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >>         > Phone: +49 421 200 3587  Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> >>         > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103       
> >>          <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jacobs-2Duniversity.de_&d=DwIFAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nvlGbzwaLflz8fPtIV-iMrmk_M-b_KUsBI5XkyR6OQA&s=HOUalUJdAOVqj49diEzGM-Z-35a5rPmj2Y4NfhsdovQ&e=
> >>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jacobs-2Duniversity.de_&d=DwIFAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nvlGbzwaLflz8fPtIV-iMrmk_M-b_KUsBI5XkyR6OQA&s=HOUalUJdAOVqj49diEzGM-Z-35a5rPmj2Y4NfhsdovQ&e=>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     yang-doctors mailing list
> >>     yang-doctors@ietf.org <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
> >>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_yang-2Ddoctors&d=DwIFAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nvlGbzwaLflz8fPtIV-iMrmk_M-b_KUsBI5XkyR6OQA&s=O67dhIVon_08t5AfSaVuRD1q-v2D8tAoezbECOsGoHY&e=
> >>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_yang-2Ddoctors&d=DwIFAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nvlGbzwaLflz8fPtIV-iMrmk_M-b_KUsBI5XkyR6OQA&s=O67dhIVon_08t5AfSaVuRD1q-v2D8tAoezbECOsGoHY&e=>
> >
> >
> 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwIFAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nvlGbzwaLflz8fPtIV-iMrmk_M-b_KUsBI5XkyR6OQA&s=8uwYVApwY6kkzVSQBhp7pYLX9cex7YQ35Dyymf1wK2o&e=