Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Hi Mahesh,
Thanks for your quick reply. Please find comments inline.
> On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani
> wrote:
>
> Hi Suresh,
>
>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>
>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>>
Hi Suresh,
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:32 PM Mahesh Jethanandani
wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> >
> > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
Hi Alissa,
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines.
It looks like I was thinking of the review of draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang,
not this one -- sorry for the mixup! (And thanks for spotting the issue!)
-Benjamin
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:39:23PM -0700, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> This is in the -19:
>
> /*
> * Logging actions for a packet
>
This is in the -19:
/*
* Logging actions for a packet
*/
identity log-action {
description
"Base identity for defining the destination for logging actions";
}
identity log-syslog {
base log-action;
description
"System log (syslog) the information for
> 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
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Just on the logging point...
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:20:49PM -0700, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> Sec 5:
>
> In this section or elsewhere it would be nice to see a sentence noting that
> this YANG model allows the configuration of packet logging, which if used
> would
> additionally warrant
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Hi,
Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>
> >> Good enough?
> >
> > No:-) The authors of YANG modules seem not to understand that it
> > applies to them, or incorrectly use the tools that would apply
> > were they correctly used.
>
> This seems to be a problem outside the scope of this draft.
Hi Tom,
>> Good enough?
>
> No:-) The authors of YANG modules seem not to understand that it
> applies to them, or incorrectly use the tools that would apply
> were they correctly used.
This seems to be a problem outside the scope of this draft. I was
thinking to strengthen Section 4.2
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:21:49PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> > This is not an improvement. Just more complexity and noise.
>
> Disagree. The RFC should not mandate the tool exits, that would be
> overreaching. How about this simpler language?
>
> NEW:
>
>Scan the artwork for
> This is not an improvement. Just more complexity and noise.
Disagree. The RFC should not mandate the tool exits, that would be
overreaching. How about this simpler language?
NEW:
Scan the artwork for horizontal tab characters. If any horizontal
tab characters appear, either
Hi Benjamin,
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:31 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC
joel jaeggli writes:
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 aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 05:38:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> The only change we're envisioning is to the following paragraph from
> Section 6.1 (Automated Folding):
>
> OLD:
>
>Scan the artwork to ensure the horizontal tab character does not
>appear. If any horizontal tab character
> Given that 2) has a)-c), I do not understand what the recommendation
> actually is. The recommendation is hopefully 2a) and we are done.
For the script that we include in the Appendix, the authors wish to
keep the current "2a" behavior and have no plans to change that.
The only change
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:55:44AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:40 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
> >
> > > This is start of a two week poll on making
> > >
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:55:44AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:40 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> > This is start of a two week poll on making
> > draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group
> > document.
> >
>
>
> I think we did this step already.
>
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 04:28:18PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > My interpretation:
> >
> > Option 2 is to disallow tabs in the output, but leave it to the
> > implementation to decide how to handle tabs in the input document, so a
> > script would be allowed to
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 04:28:18PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> My interpretation:
>
> Option 2 is to disallow tabs in the output, but leave it to the
> implementation to decide how to handle tabs in the input document, so a
> script would be allowed to do a, b, or c.
>
> Just supporting
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
Lou
On 9/26/2018 11:26 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
My interpretation:
Option 2 is to disallow tabs in the output, but leave it to the
implementation to decide how to handle tabs in the input document, so a
script would be allowed to do a, b, or c.
Just supporting "option 2(a)" is the same as "option 1":
1) RFC disallows TABS in both the
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?
Please state either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:40 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
> This is start of a two week poll on making
> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group
> document.
>
I think we did this step already.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20344.html
Otherwise how would the
Yes/support.
Thanks,
Rob
On 26/09/2018 15:40, joel jaeggli wrote:
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group
document.
You may review at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02
Please send email to the list
Yes/support
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/26/18, 10:41 AM, "netmod on behalf of joel jaeggli"
wrote:
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group
document.
You may review at:
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a NetMod working group
document.
You may review at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please
On 26/09/2018 15:09, Kent Watsen wrote:
I recommend that we select "option-2" (see bottom).
Yes, option 2 seems reasonable to me.
Thanks,
Rob
- it easy to do.
- there's no current support for having tabs in folded output.
- doing so doesn't preclude an "option-3" someday in the future.
I recommend that we select "option-2" (see bottom).
- it easy to do.
- there's no current support for having tabs in folded output.
- doing so doesn't preclude an "option-3" someday in the future.
The authors will assume that this is WG consensus if there are no
objections within a week's
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Wilton"
To: "Qin Wu" ; "Kent Watsen" ;
"Netconf"
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:06 AM
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Yes, I think that updating RFC 6991 would be useful, if there are
types
> missing.
Give us a clue!
And isn't this one one for the
36 matches
Mail list logo
