Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> writes: > On 1/16/2018 10:22 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> I think >>>> it is incumbent upon those revisiting past/closed WG decisions (in >>>> this case, inline schema being represented by YL) to argue why the >>>> decision needs to be revisited. >>> I'm repeating my self: b/c the current solution doesn't work well with >>> the NMDA. >> We can try to update the draft and the examples, it should then be much more >> clear. It is really very little extra work. >> >> Lada >> > > Lada, > Understanding impact of your proposal on the following would be > quite helpful: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ (pub requested) > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/ (pub > requested)
In these two drafts, the examples in their appendices have to be updated. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang/ AFAICT, there is no impact on this draft. Lada > > Lou > > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
