----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Wilton" <rwil...@cisco.com> To: "Qin Wu" <bill...@huawei.com>; "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net>; "Netconf" <netc...@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:06 AM
> Hi Juergen, > > Yes, I think that updating RFC 6991 would be useful, if there are types > missing. Give us a clue! And isn't this one one for the netmod WG (a list that is pleasantly quiet currently) ? Tom Petch > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 26/09/2018 10:28, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 08:00:26AM +0000, Qin Wu wrote: > >> I wonder whether you really need a uint32 range of hours in the OAM models. > >> > >> [Qin]: not necessary for OAM model, but It may be used in some other models that require unint32 range of hours. > > Authors may not want to depend on ietf-lime-time-types for generic > > types for time periods, nor am I sure the solution there is a simple > > solution. > > > > Perhaps its time to see whether it makes sense to spin an update of > > RFC 6991 to add definitions that are apparently missing. Aftert 5 > > years this may be a reasonable thing to do. We should not hold off > > work because of this but we may allow authors to transition to common > > definitions if what they do now is compatible with a common solution > > underway. I would be willing to allocate some of my time to an update > > of RFC 6991 if the WG believes this is useful. > > > > /js > > > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > netc...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
