Hi,
Speaking as an individual contributor, I'm leaning toward option 3. In case
someone implemented RFC 8347, they can choose whether to implement the new
model.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:43 PM Acee Lindem wrote:
> This BIS document updates the YANG model with IETF inclusive
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the thoughtful proposal, and I support it.
One thing to confirm, for models that may become RFCs in the next two years and
where the IP address doesn’t support zones, "ip-address” should still be used.
Correct?
Thanks,
Yingzhen
> On Apr 11, 2022, at 10:06 AM, Rob Wilton
Hi Reshad,
Thanks for the link to verify JSON, it’s very helpful.
I’ve uploaded version -07. Please let me know if you have any comments.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 8:34 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu , Alexander L Clemm
, "yang-d
uot;
Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:58 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu , Alexander L Clemm
, "yang-doct...@ietf.org"
Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org"
, "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last
Hi Reshad,
Thank you for your review.
About the example, in RFC 8072, in the list “edit”, each edit is identified by
“edit-id”. So the example looks like:
1
…..
2
….
Do you mean this part is broken?
Thanks,
Yingzhen
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
Date: Tuesday, September 22,
Hi,
Here is my understanding of the node-tag draft. Please correct me if there is
any misunderstanding.
This draft is an idea extension of the module-tag draft. Module-tag is to tag
or categorize modules, for example, tag “ietf:routing” can be used to “group”
together modules like
Sorry, had to resend the email with reduced recipients because it was held due
to too many recipients.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 8/14/20, 2:50 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" wrote:
Hi Tarek,
The proposed change separates IP routes and MPLS routes, and it works fine
with RFC 8349. All
I'm not aware of any IPR besides the one disclosed.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 2/25/20, 10:42 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" wrote:
Joel,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Feb 17, 2020, at 11:44, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> No,
Hi Martin,
I agree with what Acee explained. Theoretically it's possible that in operation
state an implementation can expand this into several route entries, but that's
not how typically a RIB is implemented. One reason is that it will make the
routing table look up much harder and
I support WG adoption.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen
Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:32 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-01
This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
Support As coauthor.
--
Thanks,
Yingzhen
发件人:Kent Watsen
收件人:netmod@ietf.org,
时间:2018-10-01 14:48:55
主 题:[netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no
Hi,
I'm not aware of any IPR that was not disclosed.
--
Thanks,
Yingzhen
发件人:Alexander Clemm
收件人:Jeff Tantsura,netmod@ietf.org,Kent Watsen,
时间:2018-10-01 18:13:47
主 题:Re: [netmod] IPR poll on draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Kent,
same here. I am
As co-author, I support and am not aware of any IPR.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:04 AM
To: Kent Watsen ; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG
Hi all,
I personally like to keep the ‘@’ and the '/' in the tree output. As we know
that a tree may not catch all what a module is trying to do, but it can help
users to quickly get an idea of the module's overall architecture etc. The '@'
and the '/' is very helpful in order to understand
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
-Original Message-
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 6:56 AM
To: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>; Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz>; Yingzhen Q
raint that enforces the fact that both
>interface and address cannot be “unspecified”.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>On 5/30/16, 8:51 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
>
>>"Yingzhen Qu (yiqu)" <y...@cisco.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi L
Hi Lada,
For ECMP, we can actually define the next-hop as a list, so if there is
only one element in the list it¹s the simple next-hop case, and for ECMP
there are multiple elements in the list. RIB is more complete by adding
ECMP support.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 3/4/16, 5:00 AM, "netmod on behalf
17 matches
Mail list logo