n lw4o6, a number of lw4o6 specific configuration parameters must be
provisioned to the lwB4. “
David Harrington
ietf...@comcast.net
On Oct 21, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Qi Sun wrote:
> Dear Ted, David,
>
> As a co-author the the draft-sun-softwire-yang-00, I have to admit this draft
> i
sent to the RFC Editor they will ask for your
source file.
Thanks,
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietf...@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharring...@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> -Original Message-
> From: karag...@cs.utwente.nl [mailto:karag...@cs
ll.net]
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 2:49 PM
> To: Joel M. Halpern
> Cc: Mary Barnes; gen-art@ietf.org; Steven Blake; David
> Harrington; draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behavi...@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08
>
> Thanks for the r
ments still seem incomplete.
They seem to be missing interoperable transport and interoperable data
models.
I hope the WG still has energy, and can redirect some of its energy to
completing these documents so we can get them approved as RFCs.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ding data model to ensure interoperability.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietf...@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharring...@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> -Original Message-
> From: ruediger.g...@telekom.de [mailto:ruediger.g...@telekom.de]
> Sent: We
the energy to complete their
agreed-upon deliverables, but if it is WG consensus to abandon them, I
guess I would have to accept that WG consensus.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietf...@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharring...@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> ---
in the
information model for each counter and configuration variable.
I think it would be better to specify a mandatory-to-implement
protocol, or at least a recommended-to-implement protocol, and a
corresponding data model to ensure interoperability.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
Try chell...@gmail.com
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: young [mailto:yo...@h3c.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 10:42 PM
> To: black_da...@emc.com; dperk...@snmpinfo.com;
> yzh...@fortinet.com; gen-art@ietf.org; m...@lilacglade.org;
> droma...@avaya.com
> Cc: cap...@frascone.co
Hi,
Some comments as shepherd.
> Minor issues:
>
> 4.2.2, 2nd to last paragraph: "It is up to implementations to ensure
> that such
> a reset does not go undetected, for example by requesting operator
> acknowledgment when a reset is performed upon reboot."
>
> Does this imply a normative require
Hi,
Thank you for the review.
comments inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:miguel.a.gar...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: dharring...@huawei.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: opsawg-cha...@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review Team
> Subje
Last Call: draft-ietf-isms-tmsm and
draft-ietf-isms-transport-security-model
Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
1) Juergen commented MIB module names
RFC4181 recommenda a naming convention where the module name, module
identity, and prefixes are consistent:
-
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; gen-art@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] gen-art
a+b
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:00 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'Randy Presuhn'; 'General Area Review Team';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EM
Hi,
Just a touch of perspective.
I joined the SNMP community because SNMPv2-party was so secure,
network management applications would no longer be able to do
autodiscovery of SNMP-capable devices. The autodiscovery we wanted to
be able to do included being able to detect what type of device it w
It was a wonderful location, and boy, am I glad we have such a great
scout for these meetings.
I still am not sure how Henrick arranged BeerWeek and the official pub
crawl to concide with our meeting, but well done!
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED
is a protocol
that is used in certain implementations, and it is independent of both
SNMP and SMIv2.
3) I also feel uneasy about the discussions of multiple instances
within an SNMP context. Is this in any way different than the normal
SMIv2 mechanisms for identifying instances?
David
16 matches
Mail list logo
