WG,
Our general feeling is that there is not sufficient support to advance
this work as a Standards Track document. Please speak up if you disagree.
Thank you,
Lou and Kent
On 2/29/2024 6:06 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
This email begins a two-week WGLC on:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html
Dear NETMOD WG,
A draft agenda for the NETMOD session at IETF 120 has been published here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning/11/
The contents are copied below for convenience.
Please let the chairs (CC-ed) know if any adjustments are needed.
Tha
Per,
I'm not parsing your request -- if you want to present something, please
respond to the 120 slot request...
Thanks,
Lou
On 7/4/2024 4:37 PM, Per Andersson wrote:
...
We request for this work to be included within this 10 minute time
slot to present.
[0]https://datatracker.ietf.org/do
Dear NETMOD WG,
Jason has let us know that he needs a break from being Secretary and, very
fortunately, James Cumming (CC-ed) has volunteered to step in.
We appreciate all the help that Jason has provided, and look forward to his
continued contribution to the WG going forwards.
Welcome James!
Hi folks,
I took a swing at YANG-next…
I started by asking RFC Editor for the XML for 7950, which I then updated to
the new v3 format. Lastly I created a PR to move the XML-specific text to a
new “yang-xml” document. Here are the results.
1. rfc7950bis
FWIW, IDK this work will obsolete 602
Title: Follow up on Management at Scale Projects
Submission Date: 2024-07-05
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1935/
From: Lincoln Lavoie
To: Warren Kumari ,Mahesh Jethanandani
,Kent Watsen ,Per Andersson
,Kent Watsen ,Lou Berger
,Henk Birkholz ,Joe Clarke
Cc: Ne
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-10.txt is now available.
It is a work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF.
Title: YANG Module Versioning Requirements
Author: Joe Clarke
Name:draft-ietf-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-10.txt
Pages: 12
Dates
Hi Reshad,
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:59 PM Reshad Rahman wrote:
>
> Hi Per,
>
> Thanks for doing the work. I just took a quick look at the document and I
> have 1 basic comment/question:
Thanks for the review!
> Section 2 has the following text where it says "instead of". IIRC when we had
> t