Thanks Patrice, That works for me as a resolution of this point. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) [mailto:pbris...@cisco.com] > Sent: 25 May 2016 12:27 > To: Adrian Farrel; 'Thomas Morin'; bess@ietf.org > Cc: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-y...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang > > Thank Adrian for your review. > > IMO, the merging of both Yang model is not longer appropriate. > At the beginning, it wasn¹t clear how both models will coexist. > I think both model are orthogonal and having L2VPN referring to EVPN is > the right way. > I will take out the comment related to ³future investigation². > > Regards, > > Patrice > > Patrice Brissette > TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING > > pbris...@cisco.com > Phone: +1 613 254 3336 > > Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE > Canada > Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/global/CA/> > > > > > > > > On 2016-05-24, 8:56 AM, "BESS on behalf of Adrian Farrel" > <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > >Thomas, > > > >I think I also don't object to the adoption of this I-D. > > > >In addition to the use of the term "service model" that I raised for > >draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang and that I think should lead to clarification > >of the > >purpose of the model described in this document, I have one question: > > > >The Abstract says "The merging of this model with L2 services model is for > >future investigation" and I assume this refers to > >draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang. > >Isn't now (i.e., the moment of adoption) a good time to try to make that > >decision so that work can progress smoothly once inside the WG? > > > >Cheers, > >Adrian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin > >> Sent: 04 May 2016 15:18 > >> To: bess@ietf.org > >> Cc: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-y...@tools.ietf.org > >> Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang > >> > >> Hello working group, > >> > >> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting > >> draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang [1] as a working group document. > >> > >> Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both cases, > >> please also state the reasons). > >> > >> This poll runs until *May 25th*. > >> > >> This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on > >> draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang hence the extended period. > >> > >> > >> We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other > >> IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed > >> in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 > >> and 5378 for more details). > >> > >> ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please > >> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > >> relevant IPR. > >> > >> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from > >> each author and contributor. > >> > >> If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please > >> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet > >> been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Martin & Thomas > >> bess chairs > >> > >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> BESS mailing list > >> BESS@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > > >_______________________________________________ > >BESS mailing list > >BESS@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
