Arturo Mayoral

In principle I agree with Italo claim: "the YANG model is sufficient to fully specify the RESTCONF/YANG wire-protocol". But any Wire Protocol definition may leads into different interpretantions of the...

Current Release notes must clarify any ambiguity about the purpose of the TAPI OAS and it must not state compliancy with RESTCONF standard as it is not confirmed.

@demx8as6 the point I think is to do not mark TAPI OAS as RESTCONF compliant until the restconf certification process you mention is carried. Which I agree it would be...

I just noticed: `tapi-topology:node/tapi-topology:aggregated-node-edge-point` , is not present in v2.2 RC-1 but is present in the current develop branch. Does this mean that `tapi-topology:node/tapi-topology:aggregated-node-edge-point` is not definitely deprecated in v2.2...

Hi all, I think we should review this topic. It is not clear to me which is the official possitioning about backward compatibility in TAPI right now. IMHO future releases...

This bug was not fixed in TAPI v2.1, could it be push a change to v2.1-bug-fixes version?

Already discussed during TAPI call 25/06/2019, the overall idea is that the **concept of nominal or primary route for a given connection is not modeled in TAPI yet.** Regarding (1),...

Additionally, I think there is missing the specification of the distinction between the nominal and protection connections supporting a protected connectivity service of the following types: - ONE_PLUS_ONE_PROTECTION - ONE_PLUS_ONE_PROTECTION_WITH_DYNAMIC_RESTORATION...

Additionally, it would be required to add further status information across the whole equipment model. Taking as a reference the IETF yang model for Hardware Management [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8348/](url), it may be...

Hi, I've been running the current swagger pyang plugin uploaded into the EAGLE repository and I cannot reproduce the same problems mentioned here and in [ict-strauss/COP#2](https://github.com/ict-strauss/COP/issues/2). My setup is the...