Hi all,
We updated the draft with many edits to enhance the readability of the
document. We also made two major changes:
* Update the security section
* Make it clear what modules are still missing for operating VPN services (see
Figure 6) and companion text in particular.
With these fixes,
Tom,
The difficulties with layer0-types were due to the complexity of the technology
we were trying to model.
Having a common layer0-types has actually helped a lot since only one module
(the layer0-types) had to go through "several revolutions" instead of the six
modules which depends on
> I asked what the four documents were since AFAICT two are published
> RFC, and that has been confirmed. So what is going to happen to those
> RFC?
My proposal (but who am I to say what will actually happen) was:
- step one: nothing
The new module is shaped as it would have been had it been
From: Italo Busi
Sent: 29 May 2020 08:56
I support developing a separate module for the common types/groupings/...
This approach has worked quite well within TEAS and CCAMP WG.
I agree that there are some risks with this work: my suggestion is just be
aware of the risks and be careful to
Hi Joe,
Many thanks for the review.
I will correct the errors in the -06 revision.
Thanks,
Bo
-邮件原件-
发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Joe Clarke (jclarke)
发送时间: 2020年5月28日 22:52
收件人: opsawg
主题: [OPSAWG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang
I have completed my
Hi all,
I support developing a separate module for the common types/groupings/...
This approach has worked quite well within TEAS and CCAMP WG.
I agree that there are some risks with this work: my suggestion is just be
aware of the risks and be careful to avoid them.
Working in parallel on
