Hi,
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 12/16/2017 10:46 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2017 04:26 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reporti
On 12/16/2017 10:46 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 12/13/2017 04:26 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did
you think forwarding and mtu should
Hi,
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2017 04:26 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did
> >> you think forwarding and mtu should be removed?
> >
All,
This last call is now closed. Since the comments
were minor, this last call is considered successful.
Authors,
Please address any/all comments received during
the LC. Once you've published the version that
you believe addresses all comments/pending changes,
I'll perform the
On 12/13/2017 04:26 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did
you think forwarding and mtu should be removed?
1. IMO since is not present in the container in the
Appendix A ()
Hi,
On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did
you think forwarding and mtu should be removed?
1. IMO since is not present in the container in the
Appendix A () example and does not have default value in the
mod
Hi,
Thanks for reporting this. I'll add the missing origin. But why did
you think forwarding and mtu should be removed? In fact, I think I
missed , so here's my diff:
--- ex-get-data-reply.xml
+++ ex-get-data-reply.xml
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
+ true
false
Hello,
The previous post was intended for the rfc7223bis Last Call (wrong
subject line).
I just completed similar validation through a testcase for the examples
in rfc7277bis ("Appendix A. Example: NETCONF reply" and
"Appendix B. Example: NETCONF Reply")
Here there are some inconsisten
Hello,
I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.
The focus of my review this time was on validating the module and the example modules and example data through
running code. I implemented NMDA for the open source tools we use and added a testcase that reproduces the
I have reviewed the doc as well, and I also support publication.
One thought for future work might be the interplay of this document and some
LLDP model. There are YANG models for LLDP proving very interesting for
network management, and any consistency rules/interactions of this with
rfc7277
t; Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
>
> All,
>
> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
>
> Please recall that this update's intention is to
> modify the YANG m
题: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
[resending]
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to be
in line with the NMDA guidelines [1]. Reviewin
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2017 8:29 a.m.
To: netmod@ietf.org
Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
Please recall that this update's intention
I have reviewed the document and support publication.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/28/17, 2:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen"
wrote:
>[resending]
>
>
>All,
>
>This starts a two-week working group last call on
>draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
>
>Please recall that this update's intention is to
>mo
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
Please recall that this update's intention is to
modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two
drafts [2] should reveal just this.
The working group
[resending]
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
Please recall that this update's intention is to
modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two
drafts [2] should reveal just this.
The
16 matches
Mail list logo
