Hi -
>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
>Sent: Mar 22, 2016 9:23 AM
>To: Eliot Lear
>Cc: "netmod-cha...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org"
>, "draft-ietf-netmod-yang-j...@ietf.org"
>, The IESG , Stephen
>Farrell
>Subject: Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on
>draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09:
Support
I would like to see this go in a direction where this can merge and be clearly
complementary with Alias-Mount and Peer-Mount.
Thanks
--- Alex
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:18 AM
To: netmo
Hi,
we have posted a new revision of the YANG-Mount draft.
This particular draft concerns the flavor of YANG-Mount that allows to mount
instances of YANG data, either local (Alias-Mount) or remote (Peer-Mount).
This is complementary to Structural / Schema-Mount, which allows to mount YANG
d
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:12:24PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> On 3/22/16 4:42 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > I think such considerations belongs into documents making use of
> > object signatures and close to 100% of the YANG models today don't
> > so I do not even think this
Hi Juergen,
On 3/22/16 4:42 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> I think such considerations belongs into documents making use of
> object signatures and close to 100% of the YANG models today don't
> so I do not even think this qualifies for RFC6087bis.
>
I think there are AT LEAST two areas where
Thank you all for this document.
Regards, B.
Forwarded Message
Subject: [RFC State] has been
added to the RFC Editor database
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:56:45 -0700
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
To: lho...@nic.cz
CC: netmod-...@ietf.org, netmod-cha...@ietf.org,
On 22/03/16 14:54, Benoit Claise wrote:
> I re-reviewed the security directory review, and from my vantage point,
> I believe that Lada addressed the review.
In case it helps, I've no problems with that.
S
>
> Regards, Benoit
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:59:08PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> On 3/22/2016 9:47 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>On 22 Mar 2016, at 09:10, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >>>Hi Kent,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for the pointer. The z
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Larsson, Gustav
wrote:
> Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> > Martin Bjorklund je 17.3.2016 ob 21:32 napisal:
> > > "Larsson, Gustav" wrote:
> > > The argument "replace" replaces properties of the target node. The
> > > > properties to replace are identified by sub
On 3/22/2016 9:47 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 22 Mar 2016, at 09:10, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Kent,
Thanks for the pointer. The zeroconf draft is cool beans to be sure.
That describes an enrollment mechanism for devices th
Dear all,
Hi Stephen,
thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline.
Stephen Farrell writes:
--
COMMENT:
--
- I would have thought that it'd be
> On 22 Mar 2016, at 09:10, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Hi Kent,
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. The zeroconf draft is cool beans to be sure.
>> That describes an enrollment mechanism for devices that make use of
>> 802.1AR.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Kent,
>
> Thanks for the pointer. The zeroconf draft is cool beans to be sure.
> That describes an enrollment mechanism for devices that make use of
> 802.1AR. Very ANIMAesque. What I'm suggesting, and perhaps it's a bit
> late f
13 matches
Mail list logo
