Hi Med,
I've replied back separately on the 2b comments.
I've also includes some further comments on the VLAN tag manipulations here:
- The description for leaf push (for both dot1q and qinq) might be better as
"push one or two tags defined by the tag-1 and tag-2 leaves".
- For tag-1 and tag-2
Hi Med,
Catching up with email, sorry for the delay, please see further comments inline
...
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 05 April 2022 11:40
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm@ietf.org
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE:
Tom,
> True but totally irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the RFC
> is needed in order to understand the I-D, the consequences thereof
> are irrelevant. IMHO it is needed to make sense of 'p' so it is a
> Normative Reference. To do otherwise is to game the system (which
>
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Wubo (lana)
Sent: 25 April 2022 14:13
Hi Adrian,
About the issue on Normative Reference, RFC4026 as specific, the authors think
this will cause downref since RFC4026 is an Informational draft.
True but totally irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the RFC is
Re-,
Isn't this clear enough (from the abstract)?
This document defines a YANG data model for representing an abstract
view of the provider network topology that contains the points from
which its services can be attached (e.g., basic connectivity, VPN,
network slices). Also, the
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 27 April 2022 11:21
Hi Tom,
I'm not sure to parse your comments.
As English, hopefully, but my point is more who needs this thing, this object
class when so many have been defined previously by I2RS, OPSAWG, CCAMP, TEAS
and so on. Look, for example,
Hi Tom,
I'm not sure to parse your comments.
SAPs are defined in the abstract, but also in the first sentence of the intro:
From the perspective of a service provider, the Service Attachment
Points (SAPs) are abstraction of the network reference points where
network services can be
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 22 April 2022 20:00
Hello, Opsawg. The last round of comments on this draft have been
discussed/resolved, and we'd like to kick off a three-week WG LC for
this work. Please provide any and all feedback on list before the end
of the day May
Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Nits
The draft addresses/fixes previous comments.
The draft, as well as the module, is well written and the only issue I've found
is kind of unclear use for the
/nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link/pm-attributes/vpn-pm-type choice. I don't
understand
