The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Model
for Network and VPN Service Performance Monitoring'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
Hi Michael,
On 9/15/2022 12:19 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
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
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your review.
And sorry for the delay: I was not too sure how to react to this review.
Another review after WGLC, to be integrated in IETF LC? Document
shepherd review needed to addressed for the document to progress?
Anyway, see inline.
Attached you will see diff with
Hi Med,
You read my mind. If I read yours correctly you mean that there can be multiple
extension headers which could be exposed each with one IE64
ipv6ExtensionHeaders. What we don't know is how many times each header type
occurs and the order in the packet. What is also missing is the
Hi Benoît,
No problem to setup a quick call to discuss this if needed.
For sure, the existing IPv6 SRH Flags registry is useful to associate some
flags with a meaning. However, the observed values may include flags for which
no meaning is defined (yet). That is why the statement ““Values for
Hi all,
This draft is triggered by the discussion with Thomas and Benoît and my review
of draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh. I'm ccing the authors of RFC7125, FWIW. I
mistakenly set the track to std instead of info (to be consistent with 7125).
I hope we won't repeat the same issues in the
