[00:00:14] <david.2> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-1.ppt
[00:00:54] atarashi leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[00:01:23] <david.2> slide 3 - Changes
[00:02:21] <sharon> I like the list of locked-nodes ....
[00:02:30] ray leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[00:02:40] <david.2> slide 4 - Recent comments
[00:04:28] <david.2> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg03915.html is what he's talking about right now
[00:05:05] ray joins the room
[00:06:04] <david.2> sharon....
[00:06:38] <bert> can you guys hear sharon
[00:06:41] <david.2> david harrington
[00:07:32] <david.2> bert wijnen
[00:07:51] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> I like ietf- on the front of the module name.
[00:07:57] <david.2> sharon...
[00:09:21] <andy> what about using the WG name as the prefix instead of ietf?
[00:10:09] <sharon> subject might be more interesting than wg
[00:10:40] <david.2> 17 want ietf-
[00:10:44] <david.2> jabber votes?
[00:10:58] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> +1
[00:11:00] donley.chris joins the room
[00:11:17] <david.2> 3 for no ietf-
[00:11:30] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> +1 for ietf-
[00:11:40] <david.2> got it
[00:12:13] <david.2> david harrington...
[00:13:59] <david.2> balazs explaining bullet 3
[00:15:50] <andy> channeling Phil -- the RFC 4741 XPath capability is not an open-ended contract.  It literally means the
[00:16:06] <andy> <get> and <get-config> operations are supported and that's it
[00:16:59] <david.2> sharon...
[00:17:58] <david.2> slide 5 - current preferred XML
[00:18:53] <david.2> slide 6 - alternative XML
[00:19:32] <david.2> back to slede 5
[00:20:25] <david.2> sharon...
[00:20:37] <david.2> sharon prefers slide 5
[00:20:50] <david.2> david harrington...
[00:21:23] <david.2> david harrington prefers slide 5 as well
[00:22:11] <andy> (1) is an NP container of empty and (2) is a leaf-list of empty; don't care but (2) is more correct YANG
[00:23:33] <andy> the container is extra and not needed
[00:23:44] <david.2> sorry... they've moved on ...
[00:23:51] <david.2> tls document...
[00:24:24] <sharon> we should decide on the correct XML encoding and yang should be worked to create it
[00:24:43] <david.2> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-2.ppt
[00:25:41] <david.2> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-3.pdf
[00:26:09] <david.2> 4741-bis discussion
[00:26:21] <david.2> slide 2 - Background
[00:27:11] <david.2> slide 3 (with * <bad-namespace> at the top)
[00:28:03] <david.2> slide 4 
[00:29:13] <david.2> slide 5
[00:29:27] <andy> I implement inline config validation as a standalone config -- as if it was the startup cfg
[00:29:30] <david.2> "Clarify what 'startup' is
[00:31:12] <david.2> sharon...
[00:33:18] <david.2> sharon also thinks we need bis of transport documents
[00:33:34] <david.2> david harrington
[00:34:52] <david.2> slide 6 - " * The error-type refers to ..."
[00:35:55] <david.2> slide 7 - " * Clarify the intended meaning of continue-on-error..."
[00:37:23] <david.2> slide 8 - " * Allow rpc-error inline..."
[00:38:47] <david.2> slide 9 - " * Return from XPath filter..."
[00:39:42] <david.2> slide 10 - " * Clarify the intention of the XSD..."
[00:40:18] <sharon> implementations that support foo and bar should behave the same for foo as implementations that just support foo
[00:41:58] <david.2> slide 11 - " * Clarify that an XML preamble is ... "
[00:42:08] <andy> XML preamble is not optional.  Don't break 4741-compliant agent which expects it
[00:43:10] <david.2> bernt linowski
[00:43:37] <david.2> last slide - " * RFC 4741 requires that all attributes..."
[00:44:27] <david.2> bert wijnen
[00:45:01] <david.2> dan romascanu
[00:45:12] <david.2> is this list prioritized?  
[00:45:14] <david.2> martin: nope
[00:45:49] <david.2> dan again...
[00:47:17] <david.2> david harrington
[00:48:35] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> Implementations behave differently and the goal is to figure out what the desired behaviour is.
[00:49:49] <david.2> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-4.ppt
[00:50:22] <david.2> slide 2 - problem
[00:51:06] <david.2> slide 3 - Basic Use Cases
[00:51:10] <sharon> I take it those were two different definitions.
[00:51:33] <david.2> "those"?
[00:51:48] <sharon> the ones on the slide .
[00:51:51] <david.2> slide 4 - Default Handling in the Real World
[00:51:54] <sharon> I guess I'll hold my commetns to the end
[00:52:05] <sharon> It just seems like the definitions were mutually exclusive
[00:52:53] <david.2> slide 5 - Manager Control
[00:53:28] <david.2> slide 6 - with-defaults Capability
[00:53:59] <david.2> slide 7 - Example: <get>
[00:54:24] <david.2> slide 8 - With-defaults = ???
[00:54:42] <andy> I actually prefer to make with-defaults part of NETCONF 1.1 and make it mandatory instead of optional
[00:55:01] <david.2> i'll say that in a moment
[00:55:08] <david.2> slide 9 - YANG
[00:55:29] <david.2> slide 10
[00:56:56] <david.2> comments on the questions on slide 10?
[00:58:46] <david.2> anyone who doesn't want to do this?
[00:58:55] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> +1 important
[00:59:17] <andy> separate doc is OK if capability is considered mandatory
[00:59:18] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> +1 this WG
[01:00:32] <david.2> lada...
[01:01:09] <david.2> next topic
[01:01:20] <david.2> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-5.ppt
[01:02:03] <david.2> slide 2 - NETCONF Notification Content
[01:02:50] <david.2> sharon...
[01:05:19] <david.2> bert...
[01:05:59] <andy> +1
[01:06:16] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> +1
[01:06:29] <sharon> I still don't understand whether the header is in or out
[01:06:32] <david.2> mark
[01:06:53] <sharon> If it's in and we only do a few notifications, then I'm good
[01:07:01] <david.2> sharon... you have to ask your question yourself...
[01:07:20] <sharon> dave - I already said that at the mike ....
[01:07:32] <david.2> not with exactly those words
[01:07:37] <david.2> repetition is the key to learning
[01:07:41] <sharon> lol
[01:07:43] <david.2> balazs lengyel
[01:08:17] <david.2> david harrington
[01:08:26] <david.2> nope...  back to BL
[01:09:04] <andy> eventClass header field + config-changed + device-changed
[01:09:41] <david.2> andy, i don't understand the comment but i can read what you wrote :-)
[01:10:13] <andy> minimal content would be 1 header field and 2 notifications
[01:10:46] <andy> I perfer to wait until NETMOD is done before worrying too much about this
[01:13:51] <david.2> dan ...
[01:14:26] <sharon> we need content now. The encoding of it isn't that important. Plus if they stick to schedule, it will be done by the time this is done
[01:14:44] <andy> just use YANG-compatible XML using XSD
[01:20:55] <Simon Leinen> folks, the same show of hands again: do you agree with bert's three points?
[01:21:00] <david.2> still +1 from andy and js?
[01:21:08] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> yes
[01:21:10] <Simon Leinen> (not define extensive notification content now, etc.)
[01:21:16] <david.2> yes
[01:21:28] <sharon> header + a few notifications
[01:21:38] <Simon Leinen> ok
[01:22:02] <david.2> next slide - WG Charter Updates 1/3
[01:22:32] <david.2> dan wants to know if it's backward compatible or not
[01:22:36] <david.2> bert - yes
[01:22:58] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> Backward compatible to a contradiction is not a goal of this work.
[01:22:59] <david.2> simon...
[01:23:15] <david.2> js, don't understand the comment
[01:23:41] <david.2> you want to maintain backward compatibility?
[01:23:47] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> We need to fix contraditions and this will impact some implementations as a matter of doing this.
[01:23:57] <david.2> got it
[01:24:00] <andy> I prefer a 1.1 which may not be backward-compatible.  What value is a new RFC with just but-fixes.  This is too much work. Fix the problems and introduce a new conformance level
[01:24:53] <david.2> next slide - WG Charter Updates 2/3
[01:25:01] <david.2> with-defaults
[01:26:01] <andy> OK to make separate doc but capability SHOULD be implemented by every implementation
[01:26:13] donley.chris leaves the room
[01:26:37] <Juergen Schoenwaelder> +1
[01:26:38] <andy> +1
[01:26:41] lhotka leaves the room
[01:27:36] <david.2> next slide - WG Charter Updates 3/3
[01:27:56] <david.2> sharon...
[01:30:20] <david.2> jabber comments...
[01:30:21] <david.2> ?
[01:30:43] <sharon> we still don't have charter text ... oh well
[01:30:55] <david.2> outta here!
[01:30:56] <andy> go have a cold one!
[01:31:01] <david.2> g'night
[01:31:04] david.2 leaves the room
[01:31:08] ray leaves the room
[01:31:15] andy leaves the room: Logged out
[01:31:22] Megumi leaves the room
[01:31:25] dbh2 leaves the room
[01:31:30] badra leaves the room
[01:31:35] bert leaves the room: Computer went to sleep
[01:32:15] Juergen Schoenwaelder leaves the room
[01:32:33] sharon leaves the room
[01:48:46] Simon Leinen leaves the room
[13:28:22] bert joins the room
[13:33:53] bert leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[13:33:56] bert joins the room
[13:36:21] bert leaves the room