Re: [OPSAWG] ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

Support the adoption of this draft. > Subject: [OPSAWG] ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized > Telemetry Data > Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 22:17:48 + > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) > To: opsawg@ietf.org > > > > This work has been presented a few times now, and

Re: [netmod] WG adoption call: draft-dbb-netmod-acl-03

Support the adoption Dean On 19 Dec 2022, at 18:00, Lou Berger wrote: > Hello, > > This email begins a 3-week adoption poll for: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dbb-netmod-acl/ > > Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the > list by the end of the day (any

Re: [Lsr] IPR Call for "YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol" - draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17

Hi, I’m not aware of any IPR related to this draft Dean > On Nov 7, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Authors and Contributors, > > Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full > conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have

Re: [Lsr] IPR Call for "YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol" - draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17

I’m not aware of any IPR associated with this document. Dean > On Nov 5, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Authors and Contributors, > > Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full > conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have

Re: [netmod] IPR call draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:26 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > Regarding the document > draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? > No, I'm not

Re: [netmod] Correction, date It ends Feb 20th Re: Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

yes/support no, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this document... Dean > On Feb 6, 2018, at 18:57, joel jaeggli wrote: > > Sorry, Feb 20th is the end date for the adoption call. > > regards > > joel > >> On 2/6/18 3:47 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

I will ask a different question How many people have implemented the draft? And are they talking from experience implementing the model? I have implemented LNE and NI and to be honest, when customers ask about IETF compatibility, i reference a draft and tell them it will take long time until

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

As Lou mentioned, schema mount can be used with or without YANG library. As author who uses the schema mount in a draft and in product, don’t want to hold back the publication. We, IETF, are too slow. Getting data model RFCs published takes too much time and we are not getting experience from

Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model

As a co-author, I am not aware of any relevant IPR Dean > > -Original Message- > From: Jeff Tantsura > Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 14:17 > To: RTGWG > Cc: 'rtgwg-chairs' , Benoit Claise > ,

Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model

As a co-author, I am not aware of any relevant IPR Dean > > -Original Message- > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:17 AM > To: RTGWG > Cc: Rtg-dt-yang-arch ;

Re: shepherd review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-04

Yes, There is. Volta Networks has implemented it Dean > On Nov 6, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > > Hi authors, > > Please see attached shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-04. Is > there any known implementation of the draft? I will update it in

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14

I agree with points raised by Juergen and Kristian. Because of design changes I have stepped down as co-author of the draft. > On Nov 2, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > Kristian, > > I hear you. What I am providing is the rational for the current

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Kent, As other work I have authored depends on it, I have read the document and think it's ready for publication. Dean > On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > All, > > This starts a two-week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-06.txt

gt; directories. > This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. > >Title : YANG Module Classification > Authors : Dean Bogdanovic > Benoit Claise > Carl Moberg >

Re: [OPSAWG] [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

d on the list). > >> 3. What's the well position of the above terms in the management >> architecture? > > Ah, I like that question. But it makes me ask: where should I look for the > definitive, state-of-the art management architecture? > > Thanks for continuin

Re: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

d on the list). > >> 3. What's the well position of the above terms in the management >> architecture? > > Ah, I like that question. But it makes me ask: where should I look for the > definitive, state-of-the art management architecture? > > Thanks for continuin

[netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt

-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt > Date: March 13, 2017 at 10:52:38 AM GMT+1 > To: <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, "Kiran Koushik" <kkous...@cisco.com>, "Lisa > Huang" <lyihuan...@gmail.com>, "Dean Bogdanovic" <ivand...@gmail.com>, "Da

Re: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

anagement architecture? As few years ago, would be willing to put something forward on this topic, but today the management architecture is in such a flux, that Adrian’s question needs an answer first. Dean > > Thanks for continuing to drive this issue. > > Adrian > >> -

Re: [OPSAWG] [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:ivand...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:53 PM >> To: Tianran Zhou >&g

Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: > > To add more comments: > > On the L2SM meeting, several people (4 or more) believed the 3 service > delivery model examples ([I-D.dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang], > [I-D.ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang] and

Re: [OPSAWG] [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: > > To add more comments: > > On the L2SM meeting, several people (4 or more) believed the 3 service > delivery model examples ([I-D.dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang], > [I-D.ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang] and

Re: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is > consistent with the latest version of > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a > question has

Re: [OPSAWG] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is > consistent with the latest version of > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a > question has

Re: [netmod] Applied data store clarification in draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com <mailto:ivand...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Authors, >> >> Need some clarification about applied data store >>

[netmod] Applied data store clarification in draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

Authors, Need some clarification about applied data store In the draft, applied data store can contain data from This data can come from several sources; from , from dynamic configuration protocols (e.g., DHCP), or from control-plane datastore. The control-plane stores are not well

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

Chairs, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Dean > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > As part of the preparation for WG Last Call > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

gt; Acee > > From: David Bannister <d...@netflix.com <mailto:d...@netflix.com>> > Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM > To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>> > Cc: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net&

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

ate an ACL. Maybe for a highly secure system would generate an ACL to deny all traffic to and from, except to access it via console when it comes up. Can you come with some other use cases? If we can find viable use cases, then yes, would say that reporting opstate for system generated ACLs is u

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 (until Oct 5, 2016)

Adrian, Sorry for not replying earlier. Your email fell through the cracks. > On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Adrian Pan wrote: > > I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 and I am considering to > implement the data model in the draft, while I found below issue:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

> On Oct 29, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > The last call period for this draft has ended. Thank you to all that > responded. Given the responses received, my co-chair and I believe that the > draft is ready to move forward. I will begin the shepherd

Re: [netmod] RFC 8022 on A YANG Data Model for Routing Management

Congrats Lada! This was a great marathon to pull of with Acee coming down the road and helping out. Again, congrats to both of you Dean > On Nov 9, 2016, at 11:18 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > >RFC

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

rs but, as a courtesy, will people claiming > implementations and using a non company email domain (e.g @gmail.com > <http://gmail.com/>) indicate which organization it is that's done the > implementing. > > thanks, > pd > > On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Dean Bogdanovi

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

I support this draft publication and we have implemented this draft, so there is another vendor implementation. Dean > On Oct 14, 2016, at 11:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > I have reviewed this draft and support its publication. We have implemented > the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-04.txt

is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. > >Title : YANG Module Classification > Authors : Dean Bogdanovic > Benoit Claise &

[netmod] review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-03.txt

Authors, I don’t have deep knowledge of PIM, so if some protocol specifics haven’t been modeled right, I missed them. For application comparison, was looking at Juniper PIM configuration. The modules are using draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg as base, and follows the routing-instance-centric

Re: [i2rs] Consensus on draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-15.txt

Russ, The email subject and the content of the email are different. Are you referring to the draft on ephemeral state or on the RIB info model? I presume it is on RIB info model, but will let you clarify it Dean > On Aug 28, 2016, at 13:26, Russ White <7ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Y'all -- >

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23

Speaker as a contributor No, I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Dean > On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Speaker as an author, > > No, I am not aware of an IPR that applies to this draft. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23

Speaker as a contributor No, I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Dean > On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Speaker as an author, > > No, I am not aware of an IPR that applies to this draft. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] Question about acl-type in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08

(+netmod mailing list) Adrian, Please see inline > On Aug 22, 2016, at 2:27 AM, Adrian Pan wrote: > > Dear authors, > > I have some questions about ietf acl model as below, your reply is > appreciated. > > 1) In the model definition acl-type is one key of the

Re: [netmod] yang model classification

Joel, > On Apr 24, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > What is the relationship between this taxonomy and the many models that do > not fit its cateogrization? > > Three examples: > Models used in ODL to generate results which may be neither network services >

Re: [netmod] Is there any common module (like library module) for matching all IPv4 or IPv6 header fields?

Linda, If you need additional fields in ACL, it is easy to extend the existing base model. The intention of the draft authors was to create base common model that can be then extended for different uses. Saying that, there is nothing out there that could be used for your purposes, but using

Re: [netmod] input Interface match

. It is out of > place with the rest of the model and a fairly clean line to draw as a > boundary for future extension/augmentation. > > Regards, > Jason > > From: EXT Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:ivand...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 9:25 > To: Stern

[netmod] input Interface match

As the action item from the netmod WG and, hopefully, last open item in the ACL draft is the leaf input interface in the metadata grouping grouping metadata { description "Fields associated with a packet which are not in the header."; leaf input-interface { type

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:55:19AM +, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) wrote: >>> I come at this from the classification angle, so my interest is if the >>> assumption that >>> a YANG model

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

ead support and it isn’t core > functionality -> assigning an ACL to an interface is how it is normally done. I’ll add this item to the open issue and will ask WG at the meeting for opinion. > > Regards, > Jason > > From: EXT Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:ivand...@gmail.com > <

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA) > wrote: > > Hi all, > > The ACL model is converging on a small core set of functionality that is > fairly common. > > But I think the matching on input-interface should be removed from the model > (or at

Re: [i2rs] [OPS-DIR] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion

Sue, IMO, ephemeral has two meaning in i2rs architecture 1. it doesn’t survive reboot 2. you can’t roll back to a previous ephemeral state Dean > On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > > Deborah: > > Section 2 is exactly the place I would put the definition of

[netmod] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07.txt

trol List (ACL) YANG Data Model >Authors : Dean Bogdanovic > Kiran Agrahara Sreenivasa > Lisa Huang > Dana Blair > Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07.txt > Pages

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

Will your model require any updates once 1.1 is ratified? We don’t > want to predicate having a bunch of models move forward on the 1.1 work > moving forward. > > —Tom > > >> On Feb 3, 2016:11:45 AM, at 11:45 AM, Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com> >&g

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

Tom, We will publish ACL model requiring YANG 1.1 as per discussion on the list Dean > On Feb 3, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Lisa (Yi) Huang wrote: > > Tom, > > We discussed the review comments in the working group in offline meeting. > Will publish a new draft to address

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Ebben Aries wrote: > > > On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >> 1. This draft defines two module, one is IETF-PACKET-FIELDS, the other is >> ietf-access-control-list module, >> I am wondering whether ietf-packet-fields module can be defined

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:58:52PM +0100, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: >> >>> >>> For the sake of clarity, I personally would prefer to have a single &

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:50:58AM -0500, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: >> Juergen, >> >> Please see answers inline >> >> Dean >> &

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:21:42PM +0100, Martin

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> On this point: >> >> On 12/21/15 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >>> And >>> should the interface

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

Juergen, Please see answers inline Dean > On Dec 11, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:27:04AM -0800, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> This email initiates a NETMOD WG Last call for >>

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

The basic design idea for the base model is structure that all vendors support. Some of the examples mentioned below, like FQDN, are not supported by all vendors and are protected by IPR (which I wasn’t aware of it). There are many possible match conditions that could be added to the base

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Martin, > n Nov 24, 2015, at 4:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >> We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the >> ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS. >> These

Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

Sue, As Alia says, in-line as always :) > On Nov 23, 2015, at 9:57 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > > Acee: > > Is your input individual input or input from the routing architecture for > yang models? > > > The routing architecture for yang models is incomplete without the >

Re: [netmod] acl-model-5: remove time-range and put input-interface behind an if-feature

Jason and I spoke on this issue and the question is Do we want to add time range directly to the standard model or create a separate model for time range that can be then applied to other different nodes? If we decide to keep it as is, then the ask is to if-feature time range. If there will

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Martin Bjorklund writes: > >> Sam Aldrin wrote: >>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > On Sep 10,

Re: [netmod] ACL model problem

Lada, Our original intention was to be able to define wild cards for source and destination ports, but what you are suggesting is also an option and I agree your suggestion is better, so adding presence statement to port containers, as in example below, would be the right solution grouping

Re: [i2rs] Does I2RS charter include both the interface to Network Controller and the interface to devices (i.e. routers)?

Linda, I understand now your question (based on reading I2NSF emails). I2RS has two elements, agent and client and I2RS agent is sitting on the network device and exposes north bound interface to the I2RS client. How I2RS agent communicates to the device is not specified. This is up to the

Re: [i2rs] WG Adoption call for draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-03 from 11/24 to 12/9/14

Support Dean On Dec 8, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Osborne, Eric eric.osbo...@level3.com wrote: Support. eric -Original Message- From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:03 AM To: i2rs@ietf.org Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas';

Re: [i2rs] Point about writable running

I would go back and ask basic question What state do we want to change via I2RS? static route dynamic routing protocol stateless firewall filters xVPN (E/L2/L3) etc based on that we can then decide if going through configuration or directly accessing responsible daemon is better way. As far I

Re: [i2rs] Point about writable running

Then we really have to write up use cases, settle on requirements and decide on the protocol. Dean On Dec 8, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote: What state do we want to change via I2RS? The original intent was specifically state in the routing table, not -- As far I

Re: [i2rs] Point about writable running

On Dec 1, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Fedyk, Don don.fe...@hp.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:26 AM To: jh...@pfrc.org Cc:

Re: [i2rs] documenting existing implementations

...@cisco.com Date: Monday, November 17, 2014 at 2:55 PM To: Kent Watsen kwat...@juniper.netmailto:kwat...@juniper.net, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.netmailto:de...@juniper.net, Jason Sterne jason.ste...@alcatel-lucent.commailto:jason.ste...@alcatel-lucent.com Cc: i2rs@ietf.orgmailto:i2rs@ietf.org i2rs

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Oct 3, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.commailto:akat...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dean, Sorry for the delay in responding. Telechats do that to one. On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.netmailto:de...@juniper.net wrote: On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Alia

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

Hi Alia, today networking devices can be managed in three ways: 1. CLI - is the UI we all know and use it quite heavily. In order for the device to boot in a known state a set of CLI commands have to be saved somewhere on the device. For that you have a data store. That data store can be a

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.netmailto:de...@juniper.net wrote: Hi Alia, today networking devices can be managed in three ways: 1. CLI - is the UI we all know and use it quite heavily. In order for the device to boot in a known state a set of CLI commands have

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: I had assumed that the YANG datastore was the repository in which the I2RS agent stored all of the operations it had applied, who had applied them, etc. This actually does lead to a related question. How does an I2RS

Re: [i2rs] Client Operations

On Oct 1, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Joel Halpern Direct jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com wrote: In line: On 10/1/14, 11:03 AM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: ... This actually does lead to a related question. How does an I2RS

Re: [i2rs] Running and I2RS Ephemeral Config Interaction

Tom, On Oct 1, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote: On Oct 1, 2014:7:43 AM, at 7:43 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: I can live with that model. Simplified and repeated: If an object is deleted in running, and the object itself was not

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

To: Dean Bogdanovic Cc: i2rs@ietf.orgmailto:i2rs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore? Hi Dean, Thanks for the explanation. It matches with what I understand for configuration. Where I am confused is why I2RS - which is doing ephemeral only and matches closer to the direct

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

. From: Thomas D. Nadeau [tnad...@lucidvision.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:33 PM To: Igor Bryskin Cc: Alia Atlas; Dean Bogdanovic; i2rs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore? On Oct 1, 2014:10:31 AM, at 10:31 AM, Igor Bryskin ibrys...@advaoptical.com wrote

Re: [i2rs] [netmod] Summary of discussion from netmod interim on i2rs requirements on netmod/netconf

On Sep 25, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote: Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote: On Sep 24, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote: We can allow multiple ephemeral data stores, but the only dependency can

Re: [i2rs] [netmod] Summary of discussion from netmod interim on i2rs requirements on netmod/netconf

On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote: On Sep 24, 2014:11:34 AM, at 11:34 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:35:47AM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: On Sep 24, 2014:3:10 AM, at 3:10 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [i2rs] [netmod] Summary of discussion from netmod interim on i2rs requirements on netmod/netconf

, at 5:51 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote: Why not start with just 1? On Sep 24, 2014:5:00 PM, at 5:00 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote: On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote: On Sep 24, 2014:11:34 AM, at 11:34

Re: [i2rs] information models for your review

Susan, Jeff Zhang and I've reviewed info model policy draft. One general comment (and I'm repeating somebody else). Didn't we decide to use YANG for all modeling? I see you use RBNF, so it would be nice to have YANG models in the draft. On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Susan Hares

Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:35 AM, t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net To: Susan Hares sha...@ndzh.com Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:06 PM Susan, My answer to your question do we ever let I2RS upon a command transfer

Re: [i2rs] draft-white-i2rs-use-case-05.txt has been posted

-i2rs-mbb-usecases/ It provides the mobile backhaul use case. If you want to suggest changes, I'm a co-author. Sue -Original Message- From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:de...@juniper.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:06 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: t.petch; i2rs@ietf.org; Jeffrey

Re: [i2rs] draft-white-i2rs-use-case-05.txt has been posted

Susan, I like the new format much better. It makes the reading more clear from beginning. I disagree with REQ10. REQ10 implies that the i2rs will store data in persistent storage. I have another use case for the draft, mobile backhaul. Currently governments are preparing to release some new

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Jeff, Alia answered my concerns and am fine with the draft for WGLC and RFC Dean On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.commailto:akat...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Juergen, Please see my responses/resolutions below. I'll be submitting a version -03 with these changes (plus a couple

Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

Susan, Many people don't know what NLRI abbreviation stands for (Network Layer Reachability Information , so writing it out first time would be a good idea. Throughout the text, the requirement number sequence is confusing until you get to the very and where all requirements are listed and

Re: [i2rs] working group last call: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement

Hi, I sent comments to the 01 version, but didn't see any of them answered in this draft. Alia responded that some of the comments were applied to the text, but I don't see them in 02 text Dean On May 16, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Edward Crabbe e...@google.commailto:e...@google.com wrote: Hello

Re: [i2rs] Updating routes wa Re: consensus on I2RS protocol and model

On May 1, 2014, at 5:17 AM, t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote: Jeff If I2RS updates the routing table, do we expect it to persist for any length of time? That is, the routing table is stable, the result of the convergence of the routing protocols (and configuration) across the relevant

Re: [i2rs] Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS)

Fabio, Alia was nice to give you some starting points, essentially taught you how to fish, but you are asking to be given the fish. Dean On May 8, 2014, at 12:03 AM, FABIO ZACCANTTE zaccan...@gmail.commailto:zaccan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Alia What is the biggest difference in SDN when I

[i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-01

Alia, Tom, Dave, Have few comments on chapter 5 in the draft The following requirement is fine, but some consideration have to be put in. Example, creating a filter construct or routing table has to be finished, before the next operation like add term to the filter or add route to the routing

Re: [i2rs] Clients-Agents relationship WAS: consensus on I2RS protocol and model

(and sometimes remote machines). In any case, this may end up being an implementation issue. I have another issue I will post probably under a separate topic: Prioritization. cheers, jamal On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote: Jamal, There is only one agent

Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model

Jamal, Majority of the people are using today NC/RC/YA (because it is available) and it provides necessary functionality. Many people, including myself, didn't find any issues so far with it and we believe it is the right choice. If you remember, at the beginning I mentioned two criteria,

Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model

what tool chains you consider necessary for RESTCONF/Yang? Do you start with informational models in the Yang/RESTCONF world? Sue -Original Message- From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 9:18 AM To: Jamal Hadi

Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model

On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:33 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com wrote: [..] I actually think it is - what's wrong with working code? ;-) Unless you have _working_ I2RS code - this is a meaningless

Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model

focus because it helps me find the issues with the relationships to simplify the models. Sue -Original Message- From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:de...@juniper.net] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:12 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim; i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe Subject

Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model

On Apr 19, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote: What is working i2rs code? Code that implements, using your choice of model and protocol, the I2RS semantics. To examplify using your slides

Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model

Jamal, Here are two criteria to be considered: 1. technical 2. commercial/business We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from business perspective for Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make more sense. We already built the Junos model in YANG and have or are in process

Re: [i2rs] Comments on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability

Joe, Besides having the same comment as Jeff, here is one more and think some additional clarification is needed Actor Identifier: This is an opaque identifier that may be known to the Client from a northbound controlling application. This is used to trace the northbound actor

Re: [i2rs] Discussion of mobile backhaul Use case

Susan, In chapter 2 Definitions there is a copy/paste error I presume PWE3: Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge EPC: Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge Presume that EPC = Evolved Packet Core Have several comments for the rest of the draft, as it is somewhat not clearly written. I

Re: [i2rs] IETF 89 agenda published

Susan, I read the mbb-usecases draft and you are covering the cases well, expect for the scenario of dynamic spectrum access. With this new spectrum allocation mechanism, the bandwidth requirements will be shifting across mobile backhaul and it will provide much more dynamic environment then

Re: [i2rs] Comments on draft-bitar-i2rs-service-chaining-01

Nabil, In section 3.2 there is a typo Packet rate utilization per Cos s/Cos/CoS it makes it consistent with rest of the document In section 3.3 Traffic Redirection, Fwd and Service Chaining, it would be interesting to see how it can be used with use cases below Subscriber Awareness

  1   2   >