Apologies everyone, I accidentally hit the wrong button in the datatracker.
This document has already successfully passed IETF LC
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/FXMc81LranPhaqpS_rIOE6Q8nbA),
I am not restarting it.
Sorry again for the noise / mis-click.
W
On Wed, Sep 27,
The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Service
Models Explained'
as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please
Hi Kent,
On 9/26/17 10:17 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> I'm not disputing the value of being able to relay such information (though
> it's missing in the brski draft), I'm just thinking that rather than hardcode
> something into the base MUD file description, that the same can be done using
> the
On 9/27/17 09:20, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Adding policy and
>> other non-NAT items would conflate the scope.
>
> [Med] Allowing for multiple NAT configurations within the same instance is
> easy to add.
> What I'm hesitating to add is advanced classification filtering that is
Hi Joe,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Joe Clarke [mailto:jcla...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 27 septembre 2017 14:36
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; opsawg@ietf.org
> Cc : Poscic, Kristian (Nokia - US)
On 9/26/17 10:06, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG,
>
> I have requested an external review of the draft from a vendor who is not a
> co-author of the draft.
>
> Kris (cced) has kindly shared his comments about the current structure of the
> module and voiced for some
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Service Models Explained
Authors : Qin Wu
Will Liu
Hi,
Great. This YANG module now correctly validates and is NMDA compliant.
https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-l2vpn-...@2017-08-25.yang
Regards, Benoit
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item
Thanks Robert,
> I don't have text to suggest, but please look at the first bullet of section
5.
> The explanation here was less helpful than the other bullets. Demonstrating
the
> confusion due to the reuse of the word "service" doesn't help clarify the
> confusion. I wonder if there's more
Hi Adrian,
Some of this has been discussed on YANG doctors list some time ago. Bad
luck, before it was archived.
Good news, I explained the conclusions on the NETMOD mailing list. See
Hi Adrian,
> In the same figure, could the "Device Configuration Model" be
renamed to RFC 8199
> "Network Element YANG module" (this is what you did in figure 4 anyway)
I believe we are separating the "device configuration model" that is
used to talk to an NE, and a "network configuration
Hi Tom,
Long time!
> > What I see from 7950 is that a "YANG module" is a compilable blob of
> > YANG that may include other modules or specific constructs from another
> > module. That is clear enough.
> >
> > What is less clear is what a "data model" is or is not. I think that
> > if, for
> For now I'll complete the AD writeup, and put it in AD watching,
> revised ID needed state. Once y'all have figured out an answer I'll
> hit the Go button.
Fair enough, Warren.
I have an update ready with changes for everyone else's comment, so we are
"close".
I know that Benoit is busy
13 matches
Mail list logo
