and/or formats are needed and, if more than
> one, which is the default.
>
> Thanks,
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen
>
> Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
> To: "netmod@ietf.org"
Message-
From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen
Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: [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 objections.
@jacobs-university.de>>,
"netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Which format to make mandatory sounds like something we can discuss in Bangkok.
The reason YANG
: Kent Watsen , Ladislav Lhotka ,
> Andy Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>, "netmod@ietf.org"
> Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Which format to make mandatory sounds like something we can dis
direction.
Kent // contributor
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Clemm
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 6:06 PM
To: Kent Watsen , Ladislav Lhotka , Andy
Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder
, "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-d
islav Lhotka
> ; Andy Bierman ; Juergen
> Schoenwaelder ; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> I agree that a mandatory to implement format is desirable.
>
> I disagree that YANG-Patch is the right format, for
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Clemm
Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM
To: Ladislav Lhotka , Kent Watsen , Andy
Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder
, "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
I would second the request for
Support –
I’m not sure I saw this on the list.
Cheerily, Sue Hares
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM Kent Watsen wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
Support.
Cheers,
Tianran
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 2:48 AM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> The
support.
Thanks,
- Xufeng
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please
gt; To: Kent Watsen ; Andy Bierman
> ; Juergen Schoenwaelder university.de>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Kent Watsen writes:
>
> > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> > Inter
format? I would think that a diff would provide
>> both values, not just a new value.
>>
>> Kent // contributor
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka
>>
>> Organization: CZ.NIC
>> Date: Th
Andy Bierman writes:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
>> Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we
>> get. If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
>> format? Does the
converting one data tree to another, would it make
> sense to define an actual diffing format? I would think that a diff would
> provide both values, not just a new value.
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod
On 2018-10-04, 4:22 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:09:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> Interoperability good. Agreed.
>
> But why YANG-patch and not
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:09:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> Interoperability good. Agreed.
>
> But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose
> (e.g., YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as
>
8 at 1:11 PM
> To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org"
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-
To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrot
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Phil Shafer wrote:
> > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > > > > >
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >> On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >>> Phil Shafer wrote:
> > Bal?zs
Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
> On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Phil Shafer wrote:
> Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> >
On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Phil Shafer wrote:
Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
[I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here,
On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Phil Shafer wrote:
Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
[I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
so that future (and
Phil Shafer wrote:
> Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
>
> Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?
Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
[I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported? That
leaf can be an identityref
Support. Balazs
On 10/1/2018 8:48 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Please indicate your support or
Support.
Kent // contributor
-Original Message-
From: Kent Watsen
Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
The IETF 102 in-room poll showed really good support to adopt
this draft, and no
Support! Important work!
Susan Hares
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 4:08 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org; Kent Watsen
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Support as co-author
r anyone else object?
Kent // chair
-Original Message-
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 8:21 AM
To: Kent Watsen , "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda
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
Hi,
I support the adoption of this document.
/martin
Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please
Support.
On 10/1/18, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen"
wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Support.
On 01/10/2018 19:48, Kent Watsen wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Please indicate your support or objection to
ent Watsen , "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the
answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF?
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmo
Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the
answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF?
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen"
wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this
Support to adopt this draft.
-Qin
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 18:48 +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this
> draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Support. Lada
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 18:48 +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please indicate
Support as coauthor
--- Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:48 PM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> The
Support as co-author
Cheers,
Jeff
On Oct 1, 2018, 11:48 AM -0700, Kent Watsen , wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
>
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
If objecting, please state your
40 matches
Mail list logo
