Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi - On 2022-04-08 12:25 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: ... If you look at the existing YANG RFCs rather than drafts that are confirming to the error, you'll notice that they don't use the no-zone types: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8344/ ... Huh? RFC 8344 *does* use

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

See inline. On 4/8/22, 1:59 PM, "netmod on behalf of Randy Presuhn" wrote: Hi - On 2022-04-08 5:11 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: .. > Instead, Acee (I'm not sure I'd call him WG B :) is asserting that > *nobody* actually wanted the current type, and it has been misused

[netmod] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06

[ Note: existing IPR declaration: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4216 ] Authors, Contributors, WG, As part of WG Last Call: 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

[netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06

This message begins a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-06, per the chair-action from the 113 session (minutes ). The WGLC will close in two-weeks (Apr 22). Here is a direct link to the HTML

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi - On 2022-04-08 5:11 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: .. Instead, Acee (I'm not sure I'd call him WG B :) is asserting that *nobody* actually wanted the current type, and it has been misused everywhere and all over. The vast majority of implementations in operation probably can't even handle the

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

From: Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern Sent: 07 April 2022 18:51 Given that you are asking for an incompatible change to an existing module, the shoe would seem to be on the other foot. If you could show it was necessary to make such an incompatible change, then there would be a difficult

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:24:55AM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > This draft has been moved out of the WG. Now in shepherd write-up. > > Comments: > > Section 4 is titled "Internet-Specific Derived Types" > Should it be something like "Internet Protocol Suite Types"? I do not care much, I now

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Randy Presuhn writes: Hi - Let me get this straight. WG A standardized types X and Y years ago, and support for these has presumably been implemented in some number of tools, which in turn have been used to develop some unknowable number of products, whose deployment is even more

Re: [netmod] IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis

Randy! >>>date -> date-with-zone >>>date-no-zone -> date-no-zone >>>time -> time-with-zone >>>time-no-zone -> time-no-zone >> This looks like my option 'e' in the other thread. It's good because it >> makes it a conscious decision either way. > > Sorry to have duplicated