Hi Joel,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
Regards, Benoit
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"
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 01:40:13PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> See below as BALAZS2.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Schönwälder, Jürgen
> Sent: 2020. február 12., szerda 10:07
> To: Balázs Lengyel
> Cc: Kent Watsen ; NETMOD Working Group
>
> Subject: [Not Scanned] - Re: [netmod] WG
Jürgen,
To tell that I was skeptical about the SUPA work is just wrong.
I had great hopes for SUPA, as having consistent policy constructs in
YANG module was key. The big hope was that those SUPA constructs could
be re-used in other YANG modules
example: routing, ACL, security ...
Reg
Hi All,
Expressing, and delegating base imperative policy to network nodes (regardless
if it’s a switch, router, network function, or indeed “controller”) is a
critical step for facilitating network automation. I support the I-D and would
like to see the WG adopt the work. Yes, the I-D needs to
Benoit,
thanks for the clarification.
I still believe that the approach taken is wrong. I doubt that network
operators are interested in an assembly level approach for expressing
threshold triggers. I am not sure xpath is the answer either. What was
perhaps reasonable to try in the 90s (RMON, DIS
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:18 AM Schönwälder, Jürgen <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> Benoit,
>
> thanks for the clarification.
>
> I still believe that the approach taken is wrong. I doubt that network
> operators are interested in an assembly level approach for expressing
> thresh
FYI, I've posted an updated version of the YANG packages draft. This is the
version that we plan to request a WG adoption call on, once we have an updated
version of the version selection draft posted (hopefully ready soon).
To highlight the main changes:
- Added a section to describe how YANG
Thanks Rob/Team!
All,
We're planning to run the adoption poll on the versioning document
set once the next update of the selection draft is published -- so
please feel free to get started reading/commenting on this document now.
Lou
On 2/19/2020 11:31 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
F
Hi,
this is a good document that deserves to go forward. Some comments...
- In the introduction, you may want to mention that applied config
often differs from config because applied config includes stuff that
was learned or generated by the system (e.g., IP addresses obtained
via DHCP or g
Just as a reminder of what the full set of versioning documents are that we
will ask the chairs to consider for WG adoption (in case you wish to start
reviewing some of the drafts early), are listed them below, and I have
indicated which ones have been (or will be) updated since 106.
1) draft-v
10 matches
Mail list logo
