Subject: [netmod] closing yang 1.1 open issue list on 2014-05-07

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:40:00 +0200

Hi,

we have been collecting issues to be considered for YANG 1.1 since
March 23rd and the WG charter covering the YANG 1.1 work was approved
on April 11th. The current list of issues can be found here (38 issues
right now):

  http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.txt
  http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html

The chairs like to close the YANG 1.1 issue collection phase on May
7th (2014-05-07). After this deadline, we will only add issues in
exceptional cases. So please post any remaining issues you want to
have addressed within the next couple of days:

> For discussion of the issues, please use mailing list threads that
> include the issue identifier. For new issues that you want to open,
> start a new thread on the mailing list to define the issue. Martin
> will double check that submitted new issues will not repeat or overlap
> with existing issues (if so, he will respond on the mailing list
> thread).

After May 7th, we will run a process to decide which issues will be
accepted as in scope for YANG 1.1 (that is move issues from NEW to
either OPEN or DEAD).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:06:18 +0200 (CEST)

>   http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html

If someone has suggested an issue that I haven't added, please let me
know.  I might have missed some issues.

/martin

---

From: Per Hedeland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:24:49 +0200

> know.  I might have missed some issues.

It seems that you didn't add "clarification of 'must' in np-container"
as a separate issue from "add 'mandatory' to NP-container" (Y38). I
believe it is important to address the former even if the latter is
dropped, since there seems to be significant disagreement on what it
actually means.

Side note: both suggested solutions to Y38 are labeled Y38-01.

--Per

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:05:12 +0200 (CEST)

> dropped, since there seems to be significant disagreement on what it

Agreed;  added as Y41.

> Side note: both suggested solutions to Y38 are labeled Y38-01.

Fixed.

/martin

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:03:46 +0200

> know.  I might have missed some issues.

I am not sure about this one:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg09597.html

It is related to Y39 but the scope is broader. I guess the essential question is whether it is really a good idea to define 'config false' data in the subtree of a 'config true' node - see the recent discussion in I2RS.

Lada

>
>
> /martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:53:15 +0200 (CEST)

Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It is related to Y39 but the scope is broader. I guess the essential
> question is whether it is really a good idea to define 'config
> false' data in the subtree of a 'config true' node - see the recent
> discussion in I2RS. 

Ok, added as Y42.

/martin

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:55:27 +0200

>> false' data in the subtree of a 'config true' node - see the recent

Great, the number tells you something. :-)

Lada