Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 16/02/2018 15:33, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> Hi Lada,
>>
>>
>> On 16/02/2018 09:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>
>>>> I should add, as a contributor, I have read this document and think that
>>>> is ready for advancement.
>>>>
>>>> I have three minor comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1) module "feature" in YANG library is a leaf-list, but currently it is
>>>> a list in YANG libary bis. I suspect that this is due to one of the
>>>> incarnations when it contained additional information.  I think that we
>>>> should revert it back to being a leaf list for consistency.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Lada recommended that module "deviation" be made a leaf-list. I also
>>>> support changing this for consistency with "feature" above, but don't
>>>> feel too strongly on this one.
>>> I agree to have both as leaf-lists.
>>>
>>>> 3) I think the "modules" list is also allowed to included modules that
>>>> don't actually contain any nodes that require implementation.  Hence, it
>>>> might be useful of the "modules" description statement explicitly stated
>>>> this.  I.e. perhaps something like:
>>>>
>>>> "This list may contain modules that do not contain any schema nodes that
>>>> require implementation.  For example, it could contain a module that
>>>> only defines types and not any data nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications,
>>>> or deviations."
>>> Hmm, such modules belong to the other list "import-only-modules", don't
>>> they?
>> So my reasoning is that either is valid.
>>
>> I.e. a module being listed under "modules" means that it implements all
>> data nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications, deviations, etc.  If a module
>> doesn't contain any data nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications,
>> deviations, etc then it is trivially implemented :-)
> OK, so if a module contains only groupings and typedefs, it can appear
> either in "modules" or in "import-only-modules", and the effect is the
> same, right?
Yes.

>
> This sounds reasonable.
>
>> As an aside, RFC 7950 states in 5.6.5:
>>
>>    A server implements a module if it implements the module's data
>>      nodes, RPCs, actions, notifications, and deviations.
>>
>>
>> I wonder whether identities shouldn't also be on this list, since
>> section 9.10.2 states:
> Yes, and extensions as well.
>
> Lada
Thanks,
Rob

>
>> On a particular server, the valid values are further restricted
>> to the set of identities defined in the modules implemented by the server.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>> Lada
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/02/2018 13:51, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>>>> As co-author, I am not aware of any IPR related to this document.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a contributor, I have read this document and think that it is ready
>>>>> for advancement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kent
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/2/18, 4:30 AM, "Netconf on behalf of Robert Wilton"
>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf
>>>>> of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware of any IPR related to this document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/02/2018 18:59, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       WG,
>>>>>
>>>>>       The authors of rfc7895bis have indicated that they believe the
>>>>>       document is ready for LC[1].
>>>>>
>>>>>       This starts a two week LC on the draft
>>>>>       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetconf-2Drfc7895bis-2D04&d=DwMD-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fi_opjj4kio7eufRXSQSi8dSjJNlkVDo8a1F0zsCrfE&s=MqbVljnYqIk9w78kcfp7oUqGR-qVoNV90njyTwLAdpc&e=>.
>>>>>       The LC will end on February 15.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Please send your comments on this thread. Reviews of the document,
>>>>>       and statement of support are particularly helpful to the authors.
>>>>>       If you have concerns about the document, please state those too.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Authors please indicate if you are aware of any IPR on the document.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>       [1]
>>>>>       https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg13980.html
>>>>>       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_netconf_current_msg13980.html&d=DwMD-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fi_opjj4kio7eufRXSQSi8dSjJNlkVDo8a1F0zsCrfE&s=XhRSSTWifO-SkPi2CWK5Z5aUni2F1qRQ8Moj7T7gI-Y&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Mahesh & Kent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>       Netconf mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>       [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>>       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>>>>       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwMD-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fi_opjj4kio7eufRXSQSi8dSjJNlkVDo8a1F0zsCrfE&s=mcDF-v5I4epgsuWLHvr32pZ5mRonROKN8zpKcZWBC0o&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Netconf mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf