tant
that it be scoped extremely tightly. This is a topic where we can easily
attract any level of discussion, and BoF proposals with clear, concrete goals
(”add this YANG thing”) succeed, whereas proposals with vague or unclear or
debated scopes may not proceed as fast or at all.
Jari
Rob Wilton (rwi
Hi Michael,
On 26/03/2024, 10:02, "Michael Richardson" wrote:
Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> 1. For me to request the creation of new open “green-bof” mailing list
> from Mahesh (hopefully should be done over the next f
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the comments. I’ve provided some comments (RW) inline …
From: Carlos Pignataro
Date: Monday, 25 March 2024 at 21:09
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) ,
Ops Area WG , E-Impact IETF ,
inventory-y...@ietf.org , Alexander Clemm
, Alberto
Hi Carlos,
During IETF 119, I had a couple of discussions with Suresh and Mahesh regarding
how we actual get some of the short term “green” related work happening in IETF
to get critical mass and cross review and get published in the short term.
This seemed to somewhat culminate during the
Hi OPSAWG,
In consultation with Mahesh, I have decided to revert OPSAWG back to two
chairs. I originally increased it to three chairs to give chairing opportunity
and experience to a new individual, but my general view is that most WGs,
except for the largest, function better with two chairs.
Paul has cleared his discuss, and I have just approved -11.
Thanks all for their work on this document.
Regards,
Rob
From: iesg on behalf of Randy Bush
Date: Friday, 23 February 2024 at 15:18
To: Paul Wouters via Datatracker
Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-upd...@ietf.org
,
I also agree. I have marked it as verified.
Regards,
Rob
From: Eliot Lear
Date: Friday, 23 February 2024 at 17:51
To: Russ Housley
Cc: Ralph Droms , droma...@gmail.com ,
war...@kumari.net , Rob Wilton (rwilton)
, Henk Birkholz , Joe
Clarke (jclarke) , zhoutian...@huawei.com
, opsawg
Hi authors, OPSAWG, WG chairs,
I appreciate that the timing isn’t ideal, but given that NMOP has just been
successfully chartered, and Incident Management is one of the current topics of
focus for that WG, then I think that it would be better for this document to be
discussed, and potentially
, 19:56, "Michael Richardson" wrote:
{noting that you reviewed -08, and we are up to -10 since, so some of
your comments/text are no longer applicable}
Rob Wilton (rwilton) mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote:
> I’ve just re-reviewed -10.I still think that the English to
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls@ietf.org
, opsawg@ietf.org
, Mahesh Jethanandani
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-09
version -10 is posted, diff is at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud
Hi Alan,
Thanks for your help. I’ve marked this as HFDU.
Regards,
Rob
From: radext on behalf of Alan DeKok
Date: Monday, 15 January 2024 at 14:20
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: RFC Errata System , war...@kumari.net
, opsawg@ietf.org , rad...@ietf.org
, Paul Wouters
Subject: Re: [radext
I-D.ietf-add-dnr] and [I-D.ietf-add-ddr] to provided.
Warning: The verb after "to" should be in the base form.
Suggested change: "provide"
Section: 7, draft text:
The use of unencrypted (Do53) requests to a local DNS server exposes the list
to any internal passive eavesdroppers, and for
Hi authors, WG,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-09.
I reviewed this doc slightly out of sequence because it was related to other
MUD files that I was reviewing and also my recent discuss on
Hi Randy,
Please see inline …
From: Randy Bush
Date: Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 19:45
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update@ietf.org
, Mahesh Jethanandani
, Ops Area WG
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-08
hi rob,
thanks for review
Hi Authors, OPSAWG,
Please see my AD review comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-08. My
focus was on the diff between the latest draft and RFC 9092. I only have some
relatively minor comments.
Minor level comments:
(1) p 4, sec 3. inetnum: Class
Any particular inetnum:
on.com; war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>
> Cc: olegpekar2...@gmail.com; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2865 (6915)
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2865,
> "Re
on this.
Regards,
Rob
From: Rebecca VanRheenen
Date: Wednesday, 10 January 2024 at 17:34
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: jpaul...@gmail.com , thorstend...@google.com
, and...@ota.si , Douglas Gash
(dcmgash) , car...@ipsec.org ,
lol.gr...@gmail.com , opsawg@ietf.org ,
RFC Editor
Subject: Re
, 2023 2:31 PM
To: Michael Richardson ; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com;
Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update
Rob, can you comment on this with respect to 9092 and the intent for this bis?
Thanks.
Joe
On 11/30/23, 09:24, "Mi
Hi,
I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm trying to charter a new "Network
Management Operations" WG. We are in the process of discussing the charter
scope, WG name, and initial work, currently on the ne...@ietf.org open mailing
list. I'm hoping to get put a draft version of the
:57 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; mu...@tislabs.com;
d...@enterasys.com; opsawg@ietf.org; Jürgen Schönwälder
; Randy Presuhn
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3413 (7694)
I went through entire STD 62 to try to determine how notInView case is supposed
to be handled, and this seemed
to quite a significant
change to the external API.
Regards,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: RFC Errata System
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 4:53 AM
To: war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
mu...@tislabs.com; d...@enterasys.com
Cc: bnem...@zebra.com; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject
Hi Michael,
A few comments/clarifications inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 4:37 PM
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerati...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re:
Hi,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-08.
I found quite a few cases where the grammar is incorrect, which I find somewhat
distracting and makes the document harder to review for technical
content/correctness. I've flagged as many of these that I can in my
-Original Message-
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 1:40 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update@ietf.org
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-03
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the follow up
o be helpful for you example to indicate what
value would actually be seen on the wire in the IPFIX export for the example
that you give.
Thanks,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:07 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@i
Hi Med, WG,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-03.
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 3, sec 3. The tcpControlBits Information Element
If exported as a single octet with reduced-size encoding, this
Information Element covers the low-order octet of this field
accurately exporting what
it sees in the packet, regardless of whether those headers should really be
there or not.
Regards,
Rob
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 25 May 2023 19:11
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; Andrew Alston - IETF
; John Scudder
Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix
Hi,
I don't think that John's example is quite the same. The IPv6 packet header
format only has a space for a single source address and it is 16 bytes long.
Two source addresses or a 20-byte address is clearly an invalid IPv6 packet
because it doesn't match the IPv6 packet format.
But I
Hi Benoit, authors,
Thanks for the updates - they look good to me. I've requested IETF last call
on -08.
Regards,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Benoit Claise
Sent: 27 March 2023 01:45
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject
Hi Ken, Joe, OPSAWG,
Thank you all for your work and reviews of this document.
This document has now been approved and moves on to the RFC editor queue.
Regards,
Rob
From: Kenneth Vaughn
Sent: 31 March 2023 00:33
To: opsawg@ietf.org; Joe Clarke (jclarke) ; Rob Wilton
(rwilton)
Cc: i-d
Hi,
Thanks for this document. Here are my AD review comments for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-07. There is an obvious disclaimer here that
I'm not an IPFIX expert, and I appreciate that one of the authors is ;-).
Moderate level comments:
, generally for YANG documents, framing that in the context of
NETCONF/RESTCONF and NACM makes sense, at least to me :-)
Regards,
Rob
From: Eliot Lear
Sent: 27 February 2023 14:29
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD
: 27 February 2023 13:25
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-12
Rob:
I think it's appropriate to accept all of your proposed changes with one caveat:
On 07.02.23 14:50, Rob Wilton
Hi Med, Alan,
Thanks. I've requested LC on -09.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 09 February 2023 10:32
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; Alan DeKok
>
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; opsawg@i
Hi Med, Alan,
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 09 February 2023 09:02
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; Alan DeKok
>
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-i
Hi Alan,
Sorry for the delay. Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan DeKok
> Sent: 19 December 2022 17:13
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of dra
lowest RESTCONF
> >> layer
> >> is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
> >> [RFC8446].
> -----Original Message-
> From: Eliot Lear
> Sent: 12 January 2023 14:24
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-
> acc
Hi Kenneth,
Apologies for the delay in progressing this. -11 is fine.
Just closing off a couple of questions inline below.
From: Kenneth Vaughn
Sent: 23 December 2022 15:13
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD review
Hi,
Thanks for this document. Here are my AD review comments for
draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction
This document specifies two new RADIUS attributes: DHCPv6-Options
(Section 3.1) and DHCPv4-Options (Section 3.2) Attributes.
Hi Eliot, Scott,
Thanks for this document. Here is my AD review for
draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-12.
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 3, sec 1. Introduction
To enable application-layer discovery, this memo defines a well-known
URI [RFC8615]. Management or orchestration tools can
Hi Kevin,
Sorry for the delay. Here are my AD review comments for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-10. All my comments are pretty minor. Please
let me know if you have any questions/comments, or otherwise can just post an
updated version which I can then send off for IETF LC.
Minor level
December 2022 14:17
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> The proposed edits look good to me. These are now implemented in the public -
> 12. Thanks.
>
nal Message-
> From: tom petch
> Sent: 19 December 2022 12:19
> To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09
>
> From: OPSAWG on behalf of
>
riginal Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
> Sent: 12 December 2022 12:53
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for the foll
Hi Benoit,
Yes, that is fine with me.
Regards,
Rob
From: Benoit Claise
Sent: 16 December 2022 10:13
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) ; opsawg@ietf.org;
Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information
in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Hi Rob
to host/ are tagged as being capable of hosting/
Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 09 November 2022 15:11
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> sap@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD
Hi Bo,
Thanks, and no worries.
Document has been approved. I would like to thank the authors, WG, and doc
shepherd for their work on this draft.
Regards,
Rob
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 11 November 2022 11:00
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc
Hi Bo,
Just a quick reminder that you can post a -15 (which I don’t think that I have
seen), and then I can approve this.
Regards,
Rob
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 25 October 2022 08:26
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; opsawg
Hi Jean,
Thanks. I've requested IETF LC on the --09 version.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Quilbeuf
> Sent: 07 November 2022 14:51
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> opsawg-service-assurance-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: RE:
Hi Med,
Apologies for the delay. The behaviour is still not entirely clear to me.
Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 29 September 2022 15:18
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> sap@ietf.or
Hi Jean,
Sorry for coming back, but I'm still not 100% sure that we are in sync. Please
see further comment and clarification inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Quilbeuf
> Sent: 06 November 2022 15:47
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
>
Hi Jean,
Just one further question inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Quilbeuf
> Sent: 19 October 2022 01:10
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> opsawg-service-assurance-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg
Hi Jean,
Thanks for the updates. I've requested IETF LC.
Regards,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Jean Quilbeuf
Sent: 18 October 2022 15:12
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-11.txt
Dear All,
The
as the authors decision, this is just a minor
non-blocking comment.
Regards,
Rob
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 21 October 2022 10:41
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification -
draft-ietf-opsawg
022 09:37
> To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-
> 14.txt
>
>
> A new version (-14) has been submitted for draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-
> service-pm:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draf
Dear authors,
And here is my corresponding AD review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-07. Again, I found the document to be
well-written, with mostly minor comments/suggestions, bar one question about
the symptom reference.
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 11, sec 3.3. YANG
Hi authors,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-09. I
would like to thank you and the WG for this document. I believe that this
architecture document, and the corresponding YANG document, offer a good
flexible basis to help with the full lifecycle
Yes. I've just verified it. Nikolai, thanks for raising it.
Regards,
Rob
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 13 October 2022 13:48
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; RFC Errata System
; nmal...@ieee.org
Cc: luis-angel.mu...@vodafone.com; opsawg@ietf.org; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Subject: Re
Hi Med,
Comments inline below ...
I've snipped out anything that we have already reached agreement on.
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 23 September 2022 14:04
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> sap@ietf.or
Hi authors, WG,
Thank you for this document. I also think that this document is well written
and in good shape, and I mostly found the explanations and examples clear.
There were two specific points that I found slightly confusing related to
differentiating between SAPs in use, and those
Hi Tom,
Perhaps you can suggest some text/clarifications and the authors could consider
it as part of the IETF last-call?
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: tom petch
> Sent: 23 September 2022 12:20
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; 'Wubo (lana)'
> ; draft-ietf-
nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node? Possibly, it could be made conditional on
/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types/service/service-type
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 16 September 2022 10:34
> To: 'tom petch' ; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> ; 'Wubo (lana
Hi Bo,
Looks good.
Let me know when you have an updated version of the draft posted and I will
kick off the IETF LC.
Thanks for the updates and for taking my comments onboard.
Regards,
Rob
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 15 September 2022 03:17
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang
Hi Bo, authors,
Okay, thanks for the clarifications. Please see inline …
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 14 September 2022 15:31
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-09
Hi
September 2022 09:25
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-09
Hi Rob,
Thank again for your deep review. Please find our response inline for the open
points.
Best regards,
Bo
发件人
Hi Bo,
Thanks. I’ve made some further comments for a few points inline. I’ve snipped
those that we already have agreement on.
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 13 September 2022 07:38
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: AD
Hi,
Here are my AD review comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-09,
apologies for the delay.
I think that this document is in good shape and hence most of my comments are
only minor or nits.
Minor level comments:
(1) p 0, sec
The data model for network topologies defined
the publication request, and more than
six weeks in "AD review" state.
Please do let us know if there is anything we can do to help advance this
work.
Thanks,
Adrian (as Shepherd)
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 05 August 2022 14:03
To: 'Rob Wilton (rwi
.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 29 April 2022 14:00
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: OFFLIST TR: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm-13.txt
>
> Re-,
>
>
amed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 29 April 2022 11:23
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: OFFLIST TR: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm-13.txt
>
> Re-,
>
> > I'm not that keen to binding the behaviour to the typ
Hi Med,
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 29 April 2022 10:45
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: OFFLIST TR: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm-13.txt
>
> Hi Rob,
>
&g
Hi Med,
Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 28 April 2022 15:53
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: OFFLIST TR: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm-13.txt
&
Hi Med,
I think that this should be a normative reference, but I don’t think that
should be a problem.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 29 April 2022 07:34
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; adr...@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: opsawg@
enforce this)? Alternatively
could add defaults so that tag-1-type defaults to S-VLAN and tag-2-type
defaults to C-VLAN?
Otherwise, I think that all other changes look good.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 28 April 2
Hi Med,
Thanks, just ack'ing that I agree with your proposed fixes, and sorry for
getting the terminology mixed up.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 28 April 2022 12:27
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
>
.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 14 April 2022 12:09
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Subject: OFFLIST TR: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-
> 13.txt
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Please let m
Hi Med,
Catching up with email, sorry for the delay, please see further comments inline
...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 05 April 2022 11:40
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm@ietf.org
> Cc: opsawg@i
iew.
>
> Staring with the last part. You can track the changes at:
> https://tinyurl.com/l2nm-latest. Please see inline for more context.
>
> There are also other edits that I made to fix nits, update references, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -Message d'origine
Hi,
Apologies for the delay, but I have now managed my AD review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-12. (Also attached in case my email is truncated ...)
I would like to thank the authors, WG for their work on this document, and the
shepherd for his review. I found the document to be well written and
-Original Message-
From: Haoyu Song
Sent: 23 February 2022 01:27
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; adr...@olddog.co.uk;
draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] A review of draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-16
Hi Rob,
Thank you
Hi Adrian, authors, WG,
Warren, Martin Duke, and I looked at this document almost 2 years back, noted
that the work that it is describing seemed to be close to work chartered in
IPPM WG, and hence recommended to the authors, via Tianran, that this work
should be presented to IPPM to see if
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: 18 February 2022 14:46
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf@ietf.org
Subject: Status of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf
Hi,
I'm just reviewing a different draft in OPSAWG
(draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework
Hi Haoyu,
Thanks for the expedient updates, they look good to me. I've requested IETF LC.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Haoyu Song
> Sent: 13 October 2021 16:05
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> ntf@ietf.org
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.o
e result of composing the properties offered by these main classes.
Warning: Use a comma before 'but' if it connects two independent clauses
(unless they are closely connected and short).
Suggested change: "system, but"
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Haoyu Song
>
Hi Haoyu,
Thanks for the quick updates. I will check the diffs and see if I have any
questions remaining.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Haoyu Song
> Sent: 08 October 2021 00:15
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> ntf@ietf.org
> C
/WDnVtM_vLm15X28OTEwI9Q6gfx0/
Regards,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: 06 October 2021 11:48
To: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-07 [2]
Hi,
Here is my belated AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-07.txt. [Text
Sorry, the IETF mail filters have truncated my email. I'll resend as HTML to
see if that helps.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: 06 October 2021 11:35
To: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-07
Hi
Hi,
Here is my belated AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-07.txt.
I would like to thank you for the effort that you have put into this document,
and apologise for my long delay in reviewing it.
Broadly, I think that this is a good and useful framework, but in some of the
latter parts of the
Carsten & Med,
Thanks for raising this. I agree with the errata, but this will need to be
hold for doc update, because we cannot create a different revision of a YANG
module through the errata process.
Thanks,
Rob
From: iesg On Behalf Of Francesca Palombini
Sent: 05 October 2021 15:12
To:
opsawg@ietf.org; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11.txt
>
> Hi Rob, all,
>
> This version integrates the IETF LC comments. Detailed replies for each
> review were already
Thanks Med for confirming that all IETF LC comments have been resolved. I've
issued the IESG ballot, it should be on the telechat in approx. 2 week's time.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 10 September 2021 08:07
>
Hi Med,
[Just to also close this thread/review.]
I think that you are good to go.
Thanks for accommodating my comments.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 13 July 2021 16:17
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsaw
Hi Med,
I think that you are good to go.
Thanks for accommodating my comments.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 13 July 2021 17:04
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-
> l3nm@ietf.org
> Cc: opsa
ear and using input vs inbound perhaps makes
more sense if they are acting in different directions.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 13 July 2021 15:42
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-
> l3nm@
Hi Med,
Please see inline, just a couple of points to resolve ...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 12 July 2021 18:35
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-
> common@ietf.org
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE:
Hi Med,
Thanks for the quick reply.
A few comments inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 12 July 2021 18:57
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-
> l3nm@ietf.org
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE:
Hi,
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-08.
Thank you for this document. Again, just minor comments/suggestions.
1.
In section 3. Description of the VPN Common YANG Module
"Encapsulation features such as" -> "Encapsulation features. Such as"
"Routing features such as" ->
Thanks Thomas.
IETF LC requested.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
> Sent: 02 July 2021 05:23
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
> mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of dr
Hi Thomas,
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-05.
Thanks for the draft, it is both short and sweet, and I have only a few minor
comments/suggestions:
1. In the abstract, I would suggest changing
on which MPLS control plane protocol within =>
the MPLS control
Hi Ben,
When you get a chance, please can you check whether -15 is sufficient to clear
your discuss. I think that is the last step to progressing this doc.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: iesg On Behalf
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
