All,
Per the message below, please note that both NETMOD sessions tomorrow are now
in Sophia. In particular, the first session is no longer in Padang.
Thanks,
Kent (and Lou)
--
Hi Everyone!
Below are changes to the final agenda. As always, the most up to date version
of the agenda is
The draft agenda for the NETMOD sessions has been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/agenda-100-netmod/
There are no sessions listed for the three NMDA-update
model drafts (rfc7223bis, rfc7277bis, rfc8022bis). They
will be covered together by the chairs in the
This closes the Last Call on this document. There is
clearly a lot of interest in the publication of an ACL
model, but there also seems to be significant concern
for how this model is structured. It seems that we need
to spend some more time to ensure the current structure
is okay. Based on
This closes the schema-mount Last Call. Looking at the
responses, there is strong support for publication after
a variety of Last Call comments have been addressed, some
threads of which may still be ongoing. The authors should
post an update addresses the Last Call comments followed
by a
Hi,
I have read this document and think that is almost ready for
publication. I have five discuss items and a bunch of nits.
Kent // contributor
1. From Section 4:
Routing configuration inside an NI often needs to refer to interfaces (at
least those that are assigned to the NI), which
> Hi Kent,
>
> thanks for the thorough review, see my responses inline.
Hi Lada, please see below.
>> 1. From Section 4:
>>
>>Routing configuration inside an NI often needs to refer to interfaces (at
>>least those that are assigned to the NI), which is impossible unless such
>>a
BCP for tree-diagrams? This doesn't seem like an appropriate application of
that designation. I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a
"practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".
Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does not
represent an
All,
Picking up on Juergen's comment:
> If these deprecated objects are essential for BBF (please confirm),
> then it might be better to define them in a separate module...
I agree that the objects should be defined in a separate module. The
request, as I understand it, is for there be an
All,
Looking at a few drafts going through last call currently, I notice that they
all define their own "Tree Diagrams" section rather than reference the
tree-diagrams draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05#section-1.1.1
>From another thread in NETCONF, Juergen writes:
I do not know whether the official tree diagram formats will
have ways to show say a container with used groupings collapsed.
This may actually be useful sometimes, but this is not what you
are look for here either. I am thinking about
[changing subject line]
All,
Please use the just-posted -08 version instead.
In addition to changing the subject line, I also changed
the text below. The end date remains unchanged.
Regards,
Kent // co-chair
--
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.
The working group last call ends on November 3.
Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
and believe it is ready for publication", are
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14.
The working group last call ends on November 3.
Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
and believe it is ready for publication", are
This poll is now closed.
draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-03 is adopted.
Authors, as discussed below, please resubmit acee-03 as ietf-00.
Since the submission window has closed, the chairs will ask for
a submission-exception. Please, shortly after submitting the
-00, submit a -01 per below
Hi Robert,
> 6.2 Invocation of RPC Operations
>
> This section updates section 7.14 of RFC 7950.
>
> RPCs MAY be defined as affecting the contents of a specific datastore,
> any configuration datastore (e.g., ), or any datastore
> (e.g., ). The RPC definition specifies how the RPC input
>
[+netconf, since this discussion regards a netconf draft]
> But possibly a useful discussion to have may be what the members of the
> NETCONF WG perceives is the future for the IETF network management
> protocols.
I'm an advocate for RESTCONF being as capable as NETCONF, and perhaps
more
As those in London recall, I suggested an alternative solution for handling
long lines in artwork in drafts. FWIW, I have captured this idea in the
following I-D:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-00
Kent // contributor
> Co-authors, if you agree, how do we track this?
As co-author, I agree and view it as an editorial update.
As co-chair, I recommend the authors commit the fix to
GitHub now and wait for AD and/or IESG reviews to trigger
an update that it will get swept into. I don't think that
it's worth
[resurrecting this thread]
Currently the zerotouch draft has a normative reference to this draft.
I will this week post an update to the zerotouch draft to resolve the
netconf list thread "a couple zerotouch-21 issues". It would be easy
for me to also switch back to using rc:yang-data, but I
Just a quick reminder for folks to send presentation requests.
Please have requests in no later than this Sunday (July 1st).
K.
= original message =
Dear WG,
The chairs notice that the preliminary IETF 102 Agenda has been posted [1].
NETMOD is scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon and
> (The exmaples with just a string of '\' are highy confusing. Unclear
> what they try to tell me... probably that the alg is much more
> difficult than I originally thought ;-)
Those are torture tests, but they due illustrate the one case where having
the '\\n' on the fold column would've
Hi Martin,
First, I just posted -05 to address the missing artwork:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-05.
See below for more comments.
Kent // contributor
= original message =
> Hi,
>
> I support this work. See below for some comments.
>
> Qin Wu
>> Those are torture tests, but they due illustrate the one case where having
>> the '\\n' on the fold column would've been illegal input (and hence the '\'
>> was replaced with a 'x'). Great for internal algorithm validation, but
>> perhaps unnecessary for the example in the text. Or maybe
Hi Jonathan,
I have applied all your suggestions for -06 - thanks!
Regarding this exchange:
>> Section 5.3, 4th paragraph: Arguably this should be from bottom-to-top
>> as, going from top-to-bottom, once you have concatenated two lines the
>> '\' will not be on the folding-column
From a
All, I just posted -06 that addresses some comments from Rob, Martin,
and Jonathan. I realize that there are still open issues, but a rapid
iteration for some of these things seems like it might be good:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-06.
Hi Robert,
> A couple
>> The authors of yang-data-ext met today to discuss how to move this
>> draft forward. After about an hour, we decided that the best course
>> of action is to:
>>
>> * clarify RFC 8040 rc:yang-data for the zerotouch use case
>> - and update the zerotouch draft to use rc:yang-data
>>
The authors of yang-data-ext met today to discuss how to move this draft
forward. After about an hour, we decided that the best course of action is to:
* clarify RFC 8040 rc:yang-data for the zerotouch use case
- and update the zerotouch draft to use rc:yang-data
* request this WG
Juergen writes:
> Kent writes:
>> I don't understand talk about abandoning this draft. There is no question
>> that it is needed (e.g., anima vouch, zerotouch, tail-f's "structure"),
>> and RFC 8040 is unsatisfactory because 1) it doesn't allow a top-level
>> 'choice' between two containers and
Lada writes:
> Andy writes:
>>IMO, the yang-data defined in RFC 8040 has a clear purpose, and it
>>is sufficient for that purpose, which is a YANG representation of
>>an instance document (such as a protocol message or file).
>
> The same is basically true even without the extension. For example,
>Martin wrote before:
> No I was thinking along the lines of:
>
> ydx:yang-data my-first-rpc-error-info {
>...
> }
>
> rpc my-first-rpc {
>...
>opx:error-info-structure my-first-rpc-error-info;
> }
>
> I.e., use yang-data to define a structure, and use another statement
> to tie
complexity of trees substantially and directs focus to the
forest, not the trees - really ultimately the intent of this.
--- Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5:06 PM
> To:
[Welcome to 2018!]
Hi Clyde,
In reviewing the -18 draft for Shepherd write-up, I found the following issues
that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit for
AD review:
1. I believe that there is a pending request from Tom on that has yet to be
addressed:
18 1:46 PM
> To: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>; Kent Watsen
> <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt
>
> By the same reasoning surely UDP should not
I'm not aware of any IPR impacting either of these two drafts.
Kent // as co-author
= original message =
The authors of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf and
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf have posted updates to their drafts, and
believe that the documents are ready for LC.
This
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:25:35AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly
>> when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half
>> pretty quickly.
>
> I provided a reasoning why 3 months may be feasible, I doubled
Hi Andy,
1) before I forget, could you please confirm one more time (the last time being
in 2016, sheesh!) that you are unaware of any IPR that needs to be filed for
this draft, according to BCPs 78 and 79?
2) Idnits found three warnings, only the first might require thought for how
best
Clyde,
This draft still isn't passing idnits. I provided the link to idnits
previously, but here it is again: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits. Below is
the idnits output for -19 with inlined comments.
PS: I didn't also checked the other issues we're tracking, but will when we get
past
Kent Watsen has requested publication of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16 as
Best Current Practice on behalf of the NETMOD working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
___
netmod
to address all the
comments received during the LC.
Thanks.
> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
>
> H Mahesh,
>
>>> - There is an open issue in the document (section 8) - are we going
>>> to resolve that du
eference for
RFC 5378.
The idnits tool is wrong. It ignores usage in an appendix.
Andy
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Andy,
1) before I forget, could you please confirm one more time (the last time
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
Kent // co-author
= original message =
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of the preparation for WG adoption:
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?
Please state either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR
Hi Dean,
"As Lou mentioned, schema mount can be used with or without YANG library. As
author who uses the schema mount in a draft and in product, don’t want to hold
back the publication. We, IETF, are too slow. Getting data model RFCs published
takes too much time and we are not getting
Dean writes: " At the end, if we need to we can revise to support future
publications."
I write: "Just a clarification on your last sentence, my understanding is that
a revision is necessary in order for schema-mount to work on NMDA-based
servers. Should we publish the current draft as is
Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on Nov
6th.
Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address
unless significant faults are found. Post LC comments have been made, which
needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-15.
This working group last call ends on January 31st.
Please send your comments to the NETMOD mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
and believe it is ready for publication", are
H Mahesh,
>> - There is an open issue in the document (section 8) - are we going
>> to resolve that during WG last call or is this a leftover?
>
> This will be resolved in the next version of the module. It is
> documented under Issues tab in GitHub. Should we remove it from
> the draft?
Most
Yes, good job Mahesh and team!
My previous Last Call closing message [1] said that we'd evaluate if that Last
Call was successful or not based on the result of the ensuing discussion
regarding the model's structure. As the diff [2] for this update shows, the
draft has changed significantly
Hi Clyde,
One quick follow-up, it seems that all drafts are moving over to reference the
tree-diagrams draft these days. As such, I think Section 1.3 (Tree Diagram
Notation) should now be removed and Section 3.1 should change as follows:
OLD
Please see Section 1.3 for tree diagram
I see a lot of suggestions to reference other drafts as examples. I would
discourage doing that. I recommend this draft clearly stating the desire,
including its own examples if needed.
Regarding referencing the tree-diagrams draft, I don't agree that having a
"Tree Diagrams" section in the
support, as a contributor
this draft is needed to resolve a zerotouch last call issue
K.
On 25/01/2018 13:26, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the start of a *two* week poll on making
> draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext a working group document. Please
> send email to the list indicating
[forwarding yang-data-ext posted to the netconf list]
K.
Eric Voit writes:
I think this work is excellent. I would like to see it adopted.
> Please take a moment to post support for the adoption of the yang-data-ext
> draft in the NETMOD working group.
>
> Recall that one of the zerotouch
I have read and support both drafts for advancement.
Kent // co-author
= original message =
Authors and WG,
We have not received any explicit support for this LC on this email thread. If
you believe these drafts are important and should proceed, please state your
support by
As co-author, I am not aware of any IPR related to this document.
As a contributor, I have read this document and think that it is ready for
advancement.
Kent
On 2/2/18, 4:30 AM, "Netconf on behalf of Robert Wilton"
on behalf of
All,
This message closes the Last Call on the ACL draft.
After a number of run-ups, it seems that we now have
a draft that folks are happy with. Thank you everyone
involved.
It's understood that object groupings are desirable.
Though we're not adding object groupings now, we are
adding
All,
The authors created a "pre09" branch on GitHub a few weeks back. On this
branch, they completed a full update of the draft. While waiting for details
on how to proceed with regards to a SM-bis, we thought it would be helpful to
make this text available now so that the technical parts
I think that there should be a note attached to such references
occurring inside of a YANG module. I think that all of my drafts
do this, though I tend to use a single large Note to Editor at the
beginning of the draft, rather than a number of smaller notes
sprinkled throughout the document.
make those changes, but most importantly, you need to make sure it
passes idnits. BTW, I was wrong before, there is an error in the 2119
boilerplate (idnits verbose output shows it)
> Thanks,
> Clyde
Kent
== original message =
On 2/6/18, 4:49 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwat
in -19.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net>
To: <netmod@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:59 PM
> Clyde,
>
> This draft still isn't passing idnits. I provided the link to idnits
previousl
Kent Watsen has requested publication of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the NETMOD working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/
___
netmod
[removing netconf]
On 2/12/18, 12:20 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Kent Watsen"
<netconf-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netconf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of
kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Balazs,
I'm unclear about the scope of the probl
Hi Balazs,
I'm unclear about the scope of the problem. Is it limited to server
capabilities?It seems that the idea is to move from having a stateful
connection to a live server to having a way to pass the equivalent state even
when not connected to the server.
Related, but probably not
g Messages over TCP
> > Creation_date: 2010-09-30
> >
> > Abstract:
> > There have been many implementations and deployments of
> legacy syslog
> > over TCP for many years. That protocol has evolved without being
> > standardized and has proven to be quite i
Yes, it may be a bug in ODL, but I also think that there is something wrong to
use such a long relative path. In that case, the relative path is actually
longer than the absolute path! That said, there is no guidance in rfc6087bis
currently, so we may need to let it go this time.
K. //
Hi Tom,
I know where you're going with this, and I agree, but as we're past AD-review,
maybe this is a good candidate for guidelines-next?
https://github.com/netmod-wg/guidelines-next/issues
Kent // shepherd
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Bierman"
Sent:
[sorry, wrong WG, moving netconf to BCC!]
ACL Authors,
Below are some issues I found while looking at doing the Shepherd
write-up today. Please take a look.
Also, with regards to the request for those having Last Call comments
to please verify that their comments were addressed, I only saw
Buggers, I thought we caught that tree-diagrams informative/normative thing
before.
Regardless, Clyde, please note that I think I was wrong before from the
shepherd write-up regarding idnits having a problem:
"""
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore' is defined on line 1340,
Alex,
What you want makes sense to me. How about putting it into an I-D that
augments the yang library bis? It doesn't have to be in this document, right?
Kent
= original message =
Well, we need a general solution for that. YANG-push is just one use case.
There are other cases
> Kent
>
> You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.
>
> The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams
> should be an Informative Reference.
>
> Therefore, the RFC Editor will not hold publication until an RFC number
> is assigned.
>
> Therefore, a note asking the
t.
Kent // shepherd
= original message =
Kent, Tom, Yaron, and Ron,
A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model has been published that
addresses your concerns.
Thanks,
Clyde
On 2/20/18, 9:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org
on beh
> Security Comments
>
> * I think almost all writable data nodes here are sensitive, because
a network
> attacker's first move is to block any logging on the host, and many
of the data
> nodes here can be used for this purpose.
>
> [clw1]
Hi Mahesh,
Please search for below (6 instances)
Thanks,
Kent // shepherd
On 2/17/18, 8:26 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani"
<mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kent,
Thanks for a detailed review. See inline.
On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:30
Juergen writes:
> I think it was common practice to write
>
> reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
>
> instead of just
>
> reference "RFC 6991";
Agreed, I always do.
> that is to include the RFC title (this can be especially useful with
> longer lists of references and less
Dear WG,
The chairs notice that the preliminary IETF 102 Agenda has been posted [1].
NETMOD is scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon and Friday morning, both sessions
are two hours.
*** Yes, NETMOD is meeting on Friday, the last day of the conference! ***
If you are interested in presenting to
> So do we hit a requirement (which is independent of versioning) that a
> mechanism is needed to select different module sets (or views), given
> that the reality gives us overlapping and competing models? And then
> as a side effect, such a mechanism may also be used to select between
>
;bar-etc" {
container-or-leaf "bar" { ... }
... // the "etc" ;)
}
grouping "foo-bar-etc" {
grouping "foo";
grouping "bar-etc";
}
Thanks,
Rob
On 11/07/2018 18:30, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Say there is:
>
>
Before RESTCONF, I implemented a versioned REST API that maintained constant
object URIs, while allowing the objects themselves to be versioned, by using
the Content-Type and Accept headers (yes, we created a media type for every
"object" in the system). The server always natively understood
Message-
A new version of I-D, draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding-07.txt
has been successfully submitted by Kent Watsen and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding
Revision: 07
Title: Handling Long Lines in Artwork in Internet-Drafts an
Say there is:
grouping "foo-bar-etc" {
container-or-leaf "foo" { ... }
container-or-leaf "bar" { ... }
... // the "etc" ;)
}
And the goal is to use the grouping sans the "foo" node.
Can a "when" statement that always evaluates to "false"
do it?
grouping "bar-etc" {
uses
> So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus
> in the WG?
Not currently, as there are two vocal groups with opposing
viewpoints. However, there was strong for advancing it
before. The chairs had to make a decision and, as you can
imagine, it wasn't easy. Ultimately, to
[To all those that said this draft was ready, really?]
Hi Mahesh,
Thanks for the update. I found some more issues. Some must be fixed,
others are nits, and might be caught by the RFC Editor. But I think
that it's embarrassing to receive comments for such things from the
IESG, as is
> I came up with 2 sentences to add to 6087bis:
>
> #1)
>
> If the patterns used in a type definition have known limitations
> such as false positive matches, then these limitations
> SHOULD be documented within the typedef or data definition.
I like this, but it would be better to also mention
of Section 1.4.
Clyde, can you please post a v23 that fixes these last two points?
Thanks,
Kent // shepherd
On 2/23/18, 1:05 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani"
<mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kent,
On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kent Watsen
<kwat..
Thanks Clyde.
Benoit, it's ready now.
Kent // shepherd
On 3/1/18, 10:29 AM, "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
<cwil...@cisco.com<mailto:cwil...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Kent,
I published a new draft that fixes the last two points.
Thanks,
Clyde
From: Kent Watsen <kwat...@jun
Hi Mahesh,
Please look for below.
Thanks,
Kent
On 3/8/18, 7:40 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani"
<mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kent,
On Mar 7, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>&g
Hi Mahesh, please look for <> below.
All, please take a look at the question around renaming the "access-lists"
container.
Thanks,
Kent
On 3/13/18, 9:46 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani"
<mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On
Hi Mahesh,
Two instances of <<>> below.
Kent // shepherd
On 3/14/18, 3:27 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani"
<mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@junip
I like Andy's proposal below, for the argument of the 'yang-data' statement to
encode some meta-information regarding the context/namespace in which it's
used, but I wonder how it really works. For instance, would "top" and
"error-info" be the only allowed base-path values for the argument?
Another and somewhat radical idea is to think of 'yang-data' as defining a data
node, like a 'container', but not a config or opstate node. Yes, this is
different from rc:yang-data, which defines a transparent node, like 'choice',
but maybe it's okay if we can get the substitution groups part
[just back from PTO]
I'll be doing the shepherd write-up shortly.
Kent // shepherd
= original message =
status on this draft?
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
> People want to use YANG to define the schema for an XML or JSON
> representation of a stand-alone document.
Agreed
> The only data needed must be module + local-name.
Or maybe: module + local-name + context, where context is one of:
- data nodes
- RPC/actions
- notifications
-
1: paragraph starting w/ "In some cases", 1st sentence, s/often/sometimes/
2: add ref to RFC 8174
2.1: s/defines a label for/defines the label for/
3.1:
a) 2nd paragraph, s/defines a label for/defines the label for/
b) 4th paragraph, add ref to RFC 6020
3.2, 1st paragraph:
a) 1st
[Reducing to just the open threads]
>> 3.1:
>> a) 2nd paragraph, s/defines a label for/defines the label for/
>
> Is this really correct? If we say "the label", it seems that we
> first have to say that such a label exists; otherwise, which label
> does "the label" refer to?
I think so, in
>From RFC 7950, Section 7.20.2, first sentence:
The "if-feature" statement makes its parent statement conditional.
Thus:
feature aaa {
if-feature bbb;
...
}
means that feature "aaa" depends on feature "bbb".
The current text is correct.
Kent
The following errata report
So it this a possible way out of the current situation? We publish a
trimmed down document that just defines the mount point extension and
we do an update of this document that adds all the details needed to
obtain the schema information?
/js
+1
This was something I suggested a while back.
Authors,
Just a few minor things found while going through the shepherd checklist. These
won't block the write-up, but should be fixed before we submit for publication.
For now, the write-up will explain that these will be fixed, and I'll clear
these comments as soon as an update is posted:
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of Shepherd write-up for the acl-model draft, we need to ensure that
all IPR has been declared. There was an IPR-call before, when there was a
different set of authors involved, but not since, so it seems prudent to do
another call now.
Are you aware of
Kent Watsen has requested publication of draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-18 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the NETMOD working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model/
___
netmod mailing
Per the Important Dates [1], the draft submission cutoff deadline
in this Monday, July 2nd. Please be sure sure to submit updates
for your drafts before then!
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/
Thanks,
Kent // co-chair
Just a quick reminder for folks to send
Hi Robert,
>>> 2) The proposed solution always left indents the wrapped line. Often for
>>> artwork (e.g. a YANG tree diagram), where whitespace is not significant,
>>> and the wrapping is relatively minor, then right indenting the wrapped
>>> line can make the results look more visually
>>But with variable placement of the '\' character you can do:
>>
>> This very long line happens to have a space character \
>> immediately after the fold column.";
>>
This would not work, since the line is one character too long
>> or
>>
>> This very long line happens to
301 - 400 of 925 matches
Mail list logo