Hi -
>From: Ladislav Lhotka
>Sent: Jan 26, 2016 6:50 AM
>To: Robert Wilton
>Cc: "netmod@ietf.org"
>Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt
>...
>This can IMO work only if the schemas of configuration and
>state data are identical or very similar. As an example,
>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> >All fine.
>
> Okay, so no desire to change -04 (which is good, as -04 is being prepared
> for AD handoff)
>
I do not understand all requirements but I have given up on it. It
might be my own stupidity. That said, some parties i
>All fine.
Okay, so no desire to change -04 (which is good, as -04 is being prepared for
AD handoff)
>I am just still confused what "relate the configuration and
>operational state nodes in the YANG schema" actually means. Does it
>mean that an IP address coming via DHCP should be reporte
I am not aware of any IPR.
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Benoit Claise (bclaise)
> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any IPR.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>> This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01.
>>
>> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-0
As a contributor to the NETMOD Operational State requirements draft
discussion, I am not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks,
Acee
On 1/26/16, 10:57 AM, "netmod on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani"
wrote:
>I am not aware of any IPR.
>
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Nadeau Thomas
>>wrote:
>>
>> Th
I am not aware of any IPR.
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>
> This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01.
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01?
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:36:17PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> >>
> >Frankly, you either list all IP addresses of an interface in one place
> >and then you need additional information to indicate where they are
> >coming from (e.g., which config tweaks them) or you distribute the all
> >IP add
On 26/01/2016 15:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:14:20PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
They have a list of IP addresses. Each entry contains:
- the configured IP address (if any),
- the operational IP address,
- an enum indicating the source of the oper
I'm not aware of any IPR.
Regards, Benoit
This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01?
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs
3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 26/01/2016 14:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> Hi Juergen,
> >>
> >> Hopefully my explanations below help clarify.
> >>
> >> On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:19:00PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Hopefully my explanations below help clarify.
>
> On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >>
> >>As I understand it, what you are proposin
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:14:20PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >
> > They have a list of IP addresses. Each entry contains:
> > - the configured IP address (if any),
> > - the operational IP address,
> > - an enum indicating the source of the operational IP address value
> > (static
Hi Martin,
On 26/01/2016 14:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Juergen,
Hopefully my explanations below help clarify.
On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
As I understand it, what you are proposing
> On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:19, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Hopefully my explanations below help clarify.
>
> On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>> As I understand it, what you are proposing here is
Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Hopefully my explanations below help clarify.
>
> On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >>
> >> As I understand it, what you are proposing here is not what the
> >> section
> >
Hi Juergen,
Hopefully my explanations below help clarify.
On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
As I understand it, what you are proposing here is not what the section
4 requirements were intended to express.
The sect
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> As I understand it, what you are proposing here is not what the section
> 4 requirements were intended to express.
>
> The section 4 requirements are meant to be at the YANG schema level,
> i.e. illustrating possible relation
Thanks Tom,
I believe the draft is good to go to IETF LC.
Once I have the write-up, I will progress it.
Regards, Benoit
[Speaking as co-chair]
Benoit,
I believe the document is now ready for your AD review.
—Tom
On Jan 22, 2016:8:37 PM, at 8:37 PM, Kent Watsen wr
18 matches
Mail list logo
