IETF
netmod
netmod@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, November 8, 2022< ^ >
Meetecho has set the subject to: IETF 113
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[09:14:42] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) @meetecho Jason doesn't have secretary rights even though he is listed on data tracker.  I just added him as a delegate too - can  you help?
[09:15:22] <zulipbot> (Lorenzo Miniero) Lou: checking, just a sec
[09:15:53] <zulipbot> (Alessandro Amirante) Lou: WG secretaries don't have any specific rights
[09:16:06] <zulipbot> (Alessandro Amirante) only chairs and delegates have "superpowers"
[09:16:19] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) ahh, well he's both now
[09:16:32] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) does he need to reload?
[09:16:55] <zulipbot> (Alessandro Amirante) he should leave the room cleanly through the door button on the top-right
[09:17:08] <zulipbot> (Alessandro Amirante) and then re-join
[09:17:08] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) thank you!
[09:17:34] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) that worked great!
[09:17:47] <zulipbot> (Alessandro Amirante) great
[09:28:21] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) Please join us for join minute taking - https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-115-netmod?edit
[09:31:33] <zulipbot> (Kent Watsen) Thank you Joel!
[09:31:33] <zulipbot> (Joel Jaeggli) thanks lou!
[09:31:46] <zulipbot> (Kent Watsen) Thank you, Jason!
[09:48:43] <zulipbot> (Scott Mansfield) samans
[09:52:40] <zulipbot> (Carsten Bormann) Power failure in right front corner?
[09:57:31] <zulipbot> (Robert Wilton) They have had presentation issues in DNSOP, so have moved on to another presentation, but I will need to step out again, probably in about 15 mins time
[09:57:44] <zulipbot> (Robert Wilton) Sorry!
[09:59:21] <zulipbot> (Lou Berger) @rob no problem
[10:01:21] <zulipbot> (Kent Watsen) agree w/ Balazs regarding that documenting the behavior helps to reduce special cases
[10:06:11] <zulipbot> (Robert Wilton) Stepping out again now
[10:20:22] <zulipbot> (Benoît Claise) Bill, regarding time/date in YANG , should be generic, or within this ACL YANG module? The former, I guess, no?
[10:30:47] <zulipbot> (Kent Watsen) I do not disagree - this WG is okay
[10:33:48] <zulipbot> (Bill Fenner) @**Benoît Claise** that's a good point too - capture the complexity of recurring events in another module, and refer to it from here.
[10:36:08] <zulipbot> (Benoît Claise) @bill, yes, to be reused in ACL, QoS, Service configuration, etc... Hopefully, it won't be too complex/too long to standardise ...  We don't want the SUPA experience again :-)
[10:58:38] <zulipbot> (Qin Wu) @benoit, good question, my impressionis generic, will coordinate with ACL extension authors about this.
[11:00:45] <zulipbot> (Qin Wu) @benoit, that is not the intention to go to that complexity, but point  taken
[11:16:26] <zulipbot> (Carsten Bormann) If there is a "don't do this", I want a tool to support this.
[11:17:38] <zulipbot> (Robert Wilton) @Carsten, as you mean you want the tool to reject this as valid?
[11:18:05] <zulipbot> (Robert Wilton) Sorry, do you mean that you want the tool to reject this?
[11:23:12] <zulipbot> (Jason Sterne) Not sure how easily a tool can find & reject/accept these trees. That requires having access to all (or a large set) of the revisions of a module and analyze the relationship amongst them all. We were more thinking of the tool as working on 2 revisions of a module to compare them.
[11:28:35] <zulipbot> (Robert Wilton) @Jason, I think that for "sensible" semver versions, it should just be possible to check against the previous version in the file.
[11:31:37] <zulipbot> (Jason Sterne) Maybe - but I'm not sure that analysis can differentiate/identify any of these good vs bad trees. To be analyzed...
[11:32:49] <zulipbot> (Joel Jaeggli) thanks!