@meetecho - please point camera to speaker
", "time": "2025-07-24T07:43:45Z"}, {"author": "Mahesh Jethanandani", "text": "Chairs, does it make sense to poll?
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:06:41Z"}, {"author": "Boris Khasanov", "text": "Agree that global looks simpler from realization side. How it would behave at scale - need more testing etc.
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:11:04Z"}, {"author": "Marc Blanchet", "text": "FYI, netconf-over-quic: proxy implementation available at: https://github.com/aochagavia/netconf-over-quinn
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:17:19Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Please can some others help take notes: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-123-netconf
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:35:45Z"}, {"author": "Alex Huang Feng", "text": "I am wondering whether moving this sentence to the core of the draft rather than the operational considerations is a better fit.
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:42:17Z"}, {"author": "Thomas Graf", "text": "Slide 9 in https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/slides-123-nmop-2-validate-configured-subscription-yang-push-publisher-implementations-00 shows how node-sets and datastore schema's are currently being used in 4 sample implementations.
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:45:33Z"}, {"author": "Jan Lindblad", "text": "@meetecho, please show speaker
", "time": "2025-07-24T08:53:46Z"}, {"author": "Reshad Rahman", "text": "I volunteer Rob
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:11:10Z"}, {"author": "Mahesh Jethanandani", "text": ":grinning:
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:12:50Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "I'd prefer the protocol/models separate, but it might not make sense in today's climate. I agree with Rob that it might be optional to implement the config model to be conformant. If Med/Mahesh's work takes off, then separating would be more compelling.
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:12:56Z"}, {"author": "Mahesh Jethanandani", "text": "I might be giving this away quite as yet, because I would rather have this discussion in opsawg ... The idea is that the model and the draft are \"together\", just that the model would be developed in a different location
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:14:50Z"}, {"author": "Ebben Aries", "text": "+1 havent read through mahesh/med proposal quite yet but we need to drive methods to be able to iterate modeling aspects (and also optionality of implementation of the model) from the underlying feature implementation
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:15:57Z"}, {"author": "Ebben Aries", "text": "but management aspects should always be coupled with new feature definition imo
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:16:58Z"}, {"author": "Reshad Rahman", "text": "Regarding conformance to spec, this is not new. There are many RFCs today where vendors say we confirm except section x.y. I don't view conformance as being a string reason to take the YANG out to a different document/RFC.
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:17:19Z"}, {"author": "Thomas Graf", "text": "+1 to Reshad and Ebben
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:17:55Z"}, {"author": "Alex Huang Feng", "text": "I agree with Reshad, that is why I really don't see the great value of having these in two different docs
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:18:20Z"}, {"author": "Bharadwaja Chittapragada", "text": "+1 Balaz
\nPersonal opinion: Keep the yang lite document single for easier reading and understanding. But maybe seperate out the yang module for less clutter during implementation (+1 on thomas opinion)
I have seen this practice at IPPM, and struggled the sync up between both the configuration model and the protocol features
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:19:21Z"}, {"author": "Mahesh Jethanandani", "text": "The CBOR draft should be a PS.
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:31:11Z"}, {"author": "Kent Watsen", "text": "agreed - with the explaination
", "time": "2025-07-24T09:31:38Z"}]