From kedargaonkar@gmail.com Wed Jul 17 13:49:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: yang@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: yang@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782F521F9D30 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WmR0bQiwzl9x for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x230.google.com (mail-ea0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17F421F9A8E for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z15so1287133ead.21 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IDr7gCNSitjKQH2+TbSo7vppZ/m/sQi3oZVgAZnQibE=; b=vjSEqTvr1VyKG6xN7fXwJQMq/VjYGSTl6B/vBtXdTDTZ9LUFXiDoU1+oXcJgX6TBEd bQREAC0Ghfl7lB4Oe5yoSz6uXtKLjCOIalyZNv2UvQB6K5F8aND+iblTODEKL69IroIn rNBFVMbategqW3CGrxUmLp73idCx+coSNYmfEvzhKzJwOF+ZtcEd3/XF4oDrMISR+pZx 7z0/haoBbbjK71CJ+UAVfjbO5LDx3AzhilULwCde3rz6hpVzJDvoz4qucbW7BVoYNNJj 81CuCPm1fUg29GLszyqLXFXBkJbnay2+NMq8bSWe1/gTE7y9vpHv+VVhO4fy00eQoSEb zkug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.15.35.65 with SMTP id f41mr8064226eev.61.1374094137507; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.199.196 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:48:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: Kedar Gaonkar To: yang@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e016353c6f46d1204e1bb38ba X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:24:14 -0700 Subject: [YANG] Usage of rpc under container or list statement X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:52:49 -0000 --089e016353c6f46d1204e1bb38ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, Can I have an rpc statement under a container or a list? RFC 6020 doesn=92t mention =91rpc=92 under section 7.5.2 (container substatements) or 7.8.1 (l= ist substatements). In my data model, I have a list defined for access points. The key for this list is the mac-address of access point. Along with all the leaves, I wanted to define an rpc under this list that enables or disables the LED of access-point. Since this rpc has meaning only for access-points, I was wondering if I could logically group it under the list, or is it mandatory that all rpcs have to be defined globally outside of containers? container access_point { config false; list ap { key =93mac_address=94; leaf mac_address { type yang:mac-address; = } rpc set_led { config false; input { leaf on { type boolean; } } } } } Thanks, Kedar --089e016353c6f46d1204e1bb38ba Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGRpdiBkaXI9Imx0ciI+PHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+R3JlZXRpbmdzLDwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnI+ PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPkNhbiBJIGhhdmUgYW4gcnBjIHN0YXRlbWVudCB1bmRlciBhIGNvbnRh aW5lciBvciBhIGxpc3Q/IFJGQw0KNjAyMCBkb2VzbpJ0IG1lbnRpb24gkXJwY5IgdW5kZXIgc2Vj dGlvbiA3LjUuMiAoY29udGFpbmVyIHN1YnN0YXRlbWVudHMpIG9yDQo3LjguMSAobGlzdCBzdWJz dGF0ZW1lbnRzKS48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGJyPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz0iIj5JbiBteSBkYXRh IG1vZGVsLCBJIGhhdmUgYSBsaXN0IGRlZmluZWQgZm9yIGFjY2VzcyBwb2ludHMuIFRoZSBrZXkN CmZvciB0aGlzIGxpc3QgaXMgdGhlIG1hYy1hZGRyZXNzIG9mIGFjY2VzcyBwb2ludC4gQWxvbmcg d2l0aCBhbGwgdGhlIGxlYXZlcywgSQ0Kd2FudGVkIHRvIGRlZmluZSBhbiBycGMgdW5kZXIgdGhp cyBsaXN0IHRoYXQgZW5hYmxlcyBvciBkaXNhYmxlcyB0aGUgTEVEIG9mDQphY2Nlc3MtcG9pbnQu IFNpbmNlIHRoaXMgcnBjIGhhcyBtZWFuaW5nIG9ubHkgZm9yIGFjY2Vzcy1wb2ludHMsIEkgd2Fz DQp3b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgSSBjb3VsZCBsb2dpY2FsbHkgZ3JvdXAgaXQgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGxpc3Qs IG9yIGlzIGl0IG1hbmRhdG9yeSB0aGF0DQphbGwgcnBjcyBoYXZlIHRvIGJlIGRlZmluZWQgZ2xv YmFsbHkgb3V0c2lkZSBvZiBjb250YWluZXJzPzwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz0iIj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNs YXNzPSIiPqA8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPmNvbnRhaW5lciBhY2Nlc3NfcG9pbnQgezwvcD4N Cg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIGNvbmZpZw0KZmFsc2U7oDwvcD4NCg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9IiI+oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIGxpc3QgYXANCns8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPqCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAga2V5DQqTbWFjX2FkZHJlc3OUOzwvcD4NCg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBsZWFmIG1hY19hZGRy ZXNzIKB7IHR5cGUgeWFuZzptYWMtYWRkcmVzczsgfTwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+oDwvcD4N Cg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCAmbHQ7c29tZS1v dGhlci1sZWF2ZXMuLiZndDs8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPqA8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIi PqCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgcnBjIHNldF9sZWQgezwvcD4NCg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9IiI+oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAg Y29uZmlnDQpmYWxzZTs8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPqCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIGlucHV0DQp7PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iIj6goKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKAgbGVhZg0Kb24geyB0eXBlIGJvb2xlYW47IH08L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPqCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIH08L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNz PSIiPqCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgfTwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9IiI+ oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIH08L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPn08L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIi PqA8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPlRoYW5rcyw8L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPSIiPjxmb250IGNv bG9yPSIjMTE1NWNjIj5LZWRhcjwvZm9udD48L3A+PC9kaXY+DQo= --089e016353c6f46d1204e1bb38ba-- From dromasca@avaya.com Sun Jul 21 05:28:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: yang@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: yang@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1220421E8091 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wcK4CIw4X3A0 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3837A11E80D9 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:27:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnYFAPbS61GHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABagkIjITVQwC+BFxZ0giQBAQEBAxIbXAIBCA0EBAEBCx0HMhQJCAIEARIIGoduAZpomxAXjmSBATcBBoMKbgOeI4sHgxKBcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,713,1367985600"; d="scan'208,217";a="17265054" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2013 08:27:47 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2013 08:21:35 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.14]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 08:27:45 -0400 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Kedar Gaonkar , "yang@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [YANG] Usage of rpc under container or list statement Thread-Index: AQHOhg05xlRmGdOrnkaf8Z1SgxhjL5lvDqwg Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:27:44 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287A840@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287A840AZFFEXMB04globa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [YANG] Usage of rpc under container or list statement X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:28:00 -0000 --_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287A840AZFFEXMB04globa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kedar, We are not using this mail list for a number of years. Actually I thought t= hat it was closed until your message arrived. I suggest that you send your = message again to netmod@ietf.org. Regards, Dan From: yang-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:yang-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ked= ar Gaonkar Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:49 PM To: yang@ietf.org Subject: [YANG] Usage of rpc under container or list statement Greetings, Can I have an rpc statement under a container or a list? RFC 6020 doesn't m= ention 'rpc' under section 7.5.2 (container substatements) or 7.8.1 (list s= ubstatements). In my data model, I have a list defined for access points. The key for this= list is the mac-address of access point. Along with all the leaves, I want= ed to define an rpc under this list that enables or disables the LED of acc= ess-point. Since this rpc has meaning only for access-points, I was wonderi= ng if I could logically group it under the list, or is it mandatory that al= l rpcs have to be defined globally outside of containers? container access_point { config false; list ap { key "mac_address"; leaf mac_address { type yang:mac-address; = } rpc set_led { config false; input { leaf on { t= ype boolean; } } } } } Thanks, Kedar --_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287A840AZFFEXMB04globa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Kedar,

 <= /p>

We are not using this mai= l list for a number of years. Actually I thought that it was closed until y= our message arrived. I suggest that you send your message again to netmod@ietf.org.

 <= /p>

Regards,

 <= /p>

Dan

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: yang-bou= nces@ietf.org [mailto:yang-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kedar Gaonkar
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:49 PM
To: yang@ietf.org
Subject: [YANG] Usage of rpc under container or list statement<= /o:p>

 

Greetings,

 

Can I have an rpc statement under a container or a list? RFC 6020 = doesn’t mention ‘rpc’ under section 7.5.2 (container subs= tatements) or 7.8.1 (list substatements).

 

In my data model, I have a list defined for access points. The key= for this list is the mac-address of access point. Along with all the leave= s, I wanted to define an rpc under this list that enables or disables the LED of access-point. Since this rpc has = meaning only for access-points, I was wondering if I could logically group = it under the list, or is it mandatory that all rpcs have to be defined glob= ally outside of containers?

 

container access_point {

           =      config false; 

           =      list ap {

           =             &nb= sp;        key “mac_address”= ;

           =              &n= bsp;       leaf mac_address  { type yang= :mac-address; }

 

           =              &n= bsp;       <some-other-leaves..>

 

           =              &n= bsp;       rpc set_led {

           =             &nb= sp;            =             config f= alse;

           =             &nb= sp;            =             input {<= o:p>

           =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =    leaf on { type boolean; }

           =             &nb= sp;            =             }

           =             &nb= sp;        }

           =      }

}

 

Thanks,

Kedar

--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287A840AZFFEXMB04globa_-- From dromasca@avaya.com Sun Jul 21 05:30:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: yang@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: yang@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3DD21F99F6 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:30:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.374 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KborMh0FQubY for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233C121F9984 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:30:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArIpAPbS61HGmAcV/2dsb2JhbAABWYJlIYEFwCsDAYEXFnSCJgEBAxIoUQEVFRRCJgEEEwgah24BliaEQpsnjmRaJ4NIbgOeI4sHgxKBcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,713,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="17265138" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2013 08:30:13 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2013 08:27:51 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:30:11 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "yang@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: yang@ietf.org Thread-Index: Ac6GDgqS3Rnb/puORs6iBvXUwgUlYw== Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287A85C@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [YANG] yang@ietf.org X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:30:21 -0000 I thought that we have closed this list a few years back, when the netmod w= orking group was formed. A message received today (the first in years) remi= nded us that we must have forgotten to close the mail list. Does anybody se= e a reason for not doing it now?=20 Regards, Dan