---- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Hopps" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]> Cc: "Lou Berger" <[email protected]>; "Routing WG" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 7:30 PM
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:29 PM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lou Berger" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: "t.petch" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; "Routing WG" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:22 PM > >> Tom, >> >> I understand your comment wrt mount . I think it is fair to suggest > that >> having a net mod working group document on the topic be a gating item. > Stay >> tuned. This sad, I hope that we can continue the discussion and > identify >> any other possible issues for this working group. >> >> I don't understand how the opstate discussion ties in. Can you > elaborate? > > Lou > > 2. This document will need to match the evolution and > standardization of [OC-OPSTATE] or [NETMOD-OPSTATE] by > the Netmod WG. We are simply stating the document needs to track the evolution of this. I don't believe there's anything in this draft that requires an opstate solution be chosen in order to review it. In fact if this were the case since op-state is targeted at *all* yang models, we would have to stop working on all models by this logic. :) <tp> Chris It is described as an open issue so I take it as such, i.e. that the draft cannot be finalised until the issue is; I have not been through the I-D to see where the text depends on the outcome of the opstate discussions (but find it plausible that it should) so it discourages me from going further. In passing, I doubt that opstate is targeted at all yang models; YANG was around for a while before these particular requirements surfaced and the I-D itself specifies a limited scope, namely "protocols and functions defined within the IETF Routing Area". Tom Petch Thanks, Chris. > ............. > " > Sounds like a Normative Reference to me (and as I said before, I still > see divergent views expressed on the Netmod WG list). > > Tom Petch > >> Thanks, >> Lou >> >> >> On February 26, 2016 7:15:36 AM t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
