Hi Rob,
Thank you for the review and helpful comments.
I copied your last comment here, since this is the last point to be discussed.
RW3:
Based on your additional information, then I think that saying that is does not
allow the gathering of performance data simultaneously is somewhat
Michael Richardson wrote:
> I have read draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture at the
> request of a few people. This is not part of any directorate review
> (that I remember, or that shows up in my review list). If it's useful
> for me to plug this in somewhere, let
On Sep 14, 2022, at 10:28 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
>
> Hello, WG. I like Henk’s subject icon. Makes for some attention-grabbing.
>
> This work has been discussed previously in opsawg, going back over a year.
> The authors have continued to progress the work and would like to gauge
Speaking as a contributor and an OPS DIR reviewer of the DNR work, I think this
RADIUS extension has value. In reviewing the draft, I found some discrepancies
in the TLV-Length fields. For example, Section 3.3.3 has a TLV-Length of “6”
whereas 3.3.5 properly describes the length as “Six
I have read draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture at the request
of a few people. This is not part of any directorate review (that I
remember, or that shows up in my review list). If it's useful for me to plug
this in somewhere, let me know.
I find the document well written, and to
Hi Bo, authors,
Okay, thanks for the clarifications. Please see inline …
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 14 September 2022 15:31
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-09
Hi
Hi Rob,
Thanks again for your review. Please find our reply inline.
Thanks,
Bo
发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2022年9月14日 17:18
收件人: Wubo (lana) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
抄送: opsawg@ietf.org
主题: RE: AD review of
Hello, WG. I like Henk’s subject icon. Makes for some attention-grabbing.
This work has been discussed previously in opsawg, going back over a year.
The authors have continued to progress the work and would like to gauge WG
interest in adopting it.
One might ask, why opsawg? The radext WG
Hello Chairs,
I am writing on behalf of the co-authors of network inventory draft. We
consider that this draft is ready for working group adoption based on the
reasons below:
1) The objective of the draft has been clarified and the YANG data model
structure is now stable. The draft main
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html
ending on Thursday, September 28th.
The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the
chairs agree. The draft has
Ok, I think the LF reference is better anyway, since it points to a more
recent version of spec. So if it's all the same, I would just assume
leave things as is.
Eliot
On 14.09.22 12:17, tom petch wrote:
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 13 September 2022 12:18
Hi Eliot,
I
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 13 September 2022 12:18
Hi Eliot,
I think Tom was referring to this link:
> https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c081870_ISO_IEC_5962_2021(E).zip
Please excuse my perpetual latency.
Yes, spot on. I would be inclined to
Hi Bo, authors,
Please see inline. Again, I have removed sections where we have agreement. I
think that there is just one area that I’m still slightly confused by relating
to the network vs service PM, for which I’ve added some further questions
inline.
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 14
Hi Rob,
Thank again for your deep review. Please find our response inline for the open
points.
Best regards,
Bo
发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2022年9月13日 17:24
收件人: Wubo (lana) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
抄送: opsawg@ietf.org
主题: RE: AD
14 matches
Mail list logo
