Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2024-04-18 Thread mohamed . boucadair
[netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15 > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:08:09AM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > Hi Jürgen, > > > > It appears that Brian and you had made progress on the other thread > related to IPv6 zone definition. Are there a

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2024-04-18 Thread Carsten Bormann
On 2024-04-18, at 15:05, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > > The sedate work is updating RFC 3339 recommending against the use of > the -00:00 notation (since it is not conforming to ISO 8601) and > instead suggests that Z is used for systems in UTC with an unknown > timezone offset. Correct.

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2024-04-18 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:08:09AM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > It appears that Brian and you had made progress on the other thread related > to IPv6 zone definition. Are there any outstanding issues that need to be > resolved? > > What is the plan to submit an updated

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2024-04-16 Thread Mahesh Jethanandani
Hi Jürgen, It appears that Brian and you had made progress on the other thread related to IPv6 zone definition. Are there any outstanding issues that need to be resolved? What is the plan to submit an updated version of the document? Thanks. > On Apr 5, 2024, at 11:23 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2024-04-06 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder
Hi Mahesh, I stopped working on this document since the AD indicated that he will refuse any non-backwards compatible changes (regardless whether they can be considered bug fixes). And I am personally also not happy about some of the new naming conventions (which this message/thread was about).

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2024-04-05 Thread Mahesh Jethanandani
Hi Juergen, Reviving this thread to identify next steps for the document. Where are we with publishing a -16 version of the draft? I do not see objections to most of your suggestions on the changes you recommend. For milli vs micro part of the discussion, could we have both? Separately, on

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2023-03-23 Thread Andy Bierman
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:11 AM tom petch wrote: > From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder > > Sent: 23 March 2023 11:13 > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:31:43PM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > Hi Jürgen, > > > > Thanks for the draft. Please see my AD review comments below, except >

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2023-03-23 Thread tom petch
From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder Sent: 23 March 2023 11:13 On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:31:43PM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Thanks for the draft. Please see my AD review comments below, except for a > couple of comments related to the change to ipv6-address

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2023-03-23 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:31:43PM +, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Thanks for the draft. Please see my AD review comments below, except for a > couple of comments related to the change to ipv6-address definition that I've > spun into a separate thread so that I can include

[netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

2023-03-22 Thread Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Hi Jürgen, Thanks for the draft. Please see my AD review comments below, except for a couple of comments related to the change to ipv6-address definition that I've spun into a separate thread so that I can include the interested parties of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis into the discussion.