1. In the desrciption of leaf-list tag
"
The operational view of this list will contain all
user-configured tags as well as any predefined tags that
have not been masked by the user using the masked-tag leaf
list below.
"
==> So the predefined tags,
No, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2018年10月17日 5:56
收件人: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Lou Berger'; 'Benoit Claise'; Qin Wu; Adrian Farrel
抄送: 'NetMod WG Chairs'; 'NetMod WG'
主题: Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
>>
>> This draft needs to define the module-tag encoding wrt/
>>- valid characters (e.g., some subset of UTF-8)
>>- min/max length (e.g., implementation MUST support at least 64 chars
>> and can support
I have no issue with systems using tags to classify or organize modules,
however this seems to me like something that would be specific to the system
doing the classifying.
It would not be something that needs to be specified in the module itself
(except perhaps as freeform description text),
Andy Bierman writes:
This draft needs to define the module-tag encoding wrt/
- valid characters (e.g., some subset of UTF-8)
- min/max length (e.g., implementation MUST support at least 64 chars
and can support larger)
I'm looking for suggestions on how to do this subset. We had
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
Kent // as an author
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel
Reply-To: "adr...@olddog.co.uk"
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 5:24 PM
To: 'Lou Berger' , Kent Watsen , Benoit
Claise , "bill...@huawei.com" , Adrian
Farrel
Cc:
On 10/16/18 14:51, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> OK, after reading your explanation and the example, I think I am clearer
> on the use case and the text you propose seems appropriate. Why don't
> you provide a new ID and I'll clear my DISCUSS
Thanks I think the authors will have that out shortly.
joel
OK, after reading your explanation and the example, I think I am clearer on
the use case and the text you propose seems appropriate. Why don't you
provide a new ID and I'll clear my DISCUSS
-Ekr
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:05 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 10/16/18 06:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
Hi Lou,
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
Thanks,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: 16 October 2018 21:26
> To: Kent Watsen; Benoit Claise; bill...@huawei.com; afar...@juniper.net
> Cc:
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of preparation for WG Adoption
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?
Please state either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
If so, has this IPR been
The NETMOD WG has placed draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Lou Berger)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding/
Comment:
IPR poll started:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
>> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Oct 2, 2018, at
Andy Bierman writes:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
> - Standard tags defined in description statements
>
> I do not like this. YANG has extension statements and having to
> parse
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> > > - Standard
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Hi,
Here are my (mostly editorial) WGLC comments on
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02:
o add boilerplate reference to RFC 8340
Done.
o 2
Use 8174 boilerplate
Done.
o 4.1
A module definition SHOULD indicate a set of tags to be automatically
On 10/16/18 06:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I still don't think I understand the security impacts of
> this well enough to know if this text is OK.
>
> Can you provide a more detailed explanation of what XPath expressions
> can and cannot do here? Happy to discuss live either on the
Hi Mike,
On 16/10/2018 16:34, Michael Rehder wrote:
Ok, so it is there in the RFC, just somewhat separated (in my view)
from the definition of “when”.
I still am somewhat surprised by this implementation.
Far more often the I see a need to enforce the presence of a variant.
I'm sorry,
Ok, so it is there in the RFC, just somewhat separated (in my view) from the
definition of “when”.
I still am somewhat surprised by this implementation.
Far more often the I see a need to enforce the presence of a variant.
Thanks
Mike
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent:
Hi,
Here are my (mostly editorial) WGLC comments on
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02:
o add boilerplate reference to RFC 8340
o 2
Use 8174 boilerplate
o 4.1
A module definition SHOULD indicate a set of tags to be automatically
added by the module implementer.
I think
Hi Mike,
On 16/10/2018 14:26, Michael Rehder wrote:
I've read rfc6110 and I didn't see any mention of "WHEN" on the mandatory
status (section 9.1.1 Optional and Mandatory Nodes doesn't list it which seems a bit odd
to me).
The section on "WHEN" just mentions the xpath mapping, not anything
I've read rfc6110 and I didn't see any mention of "WHEN" on the mandatory
status (section 9.1.1 Optional and Mandatory Nodes doesn't list it which seems
a bit odd to me).
The section on "WHEN" just mentions the xpath mapping, not anything about
changing the mandatory status of the enclosing
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
> > - Standard tags defined in description statements
> >
> > I do not like this. YANG has extension statements and having to
> > parse stuff out of free text
I'm sorry, but I still don't think I understand the security impacts of
this well enough to know if this text is OK.
Can you provide a more detailed explanation of what XPath expressions can
and cannot do here? Happy to discuss live either on the phone or in BKK
-Ekr
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at
Hi,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> That seems like it's going to have some pretty surprising consequences and
> at minimum needs more information in the Security Considerations.
Ok. Howabout we add a paragraph to the end of the Security
Considerations section:
Care must be taken when the
On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
> Not ready, comments posted earlier here:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/qUGyGIxHJKsEXZsG6r3P7R0nirg
Hi Re-quoting to keep the discussion on this thread.
> - What does this mean? In particular the second sentence
>
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Alex Campbell wrote:
>
> The introduction does not explain what they are useful for
The second sentence of the abstract: "The expectation is for such tags to be
used to help classify and organize modules." The introduction repeats this in
the first sentence.
27 matches
Mail list logo
