Hey, Thomas. I’m a wee bit nervous declaring stability since IETF 115 hasn’t
happened yet, but I do think you’re on track, and I can request of the WG their
thoughts as to whether there is consensus that early allocation is warranted.
So, I think a, b, and d from Section 2 are met (speaking
Hi Rob,
Thank you for the review. The changes can be tracked at:
https://tinyurl.com/sap-latest
Please note that I made a change to better allow for reuse of the SAP
information in other modules (this can be tracked here:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your careful review. We have posted rev-11. Please see if this
version addresses your comments.
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-11
Please also see inline for the detailed reply.
Thanks,
Bo
-Original Message-
Dear OPSAWG chairs,
We believe that the draft is reaching stable state. At IETF 115 hackathon in
November we will have one open-source and one closed-source implementation of
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.
Therefore we believe we are satisfying the conditions for early allocation of
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 : A YANG Model for Network and VPN Service Performance
Monitoring
Authors : Bo
Dear OPSAWG, SPRING and 6MAN,
Version -01 of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh has been published to address
various comments from the lists since IETF 114. Many thanks for all who
reviewed and contributed. This is much appreciated.
We added section 6.3, Multiple Segment Routing Headers in the
Hi authors, WG,
Thank you for this document. I also think that this document is well written
and in good shape, and I mostly found the explanations and examples clear.
There were two specific points that I found slightly confusing related to
differentiating between SAPs in use, and those
Hi Tom,
Perhaps you can suggest some text/clarifications and the authors could consider
it as part of the IETF last-call?
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: tom petch
> Sent: 23 September 2022 12:20
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; 'Wubo (lana)'
> ;
Thinking some more ...
On 22/09/2022 12:24, tom petch wrote:
On 20/09/2022 17:24, The IESG wrote:
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
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: 16 September 2022 10:33
Hi Tom, all,
I think my review as Shepherd ran into the same concern. And it is one of my
long-standing gripes that "we" (the IETF) repeatedly confuse VPN as a service
with the means and mechanisms to realise the VPN within the network. Of
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 : Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP
Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Benoit Claise wrote:
> If you speak about RFC 7942, it mentions:
>We recommend that the Implementation Status section should be
> removed from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.
> So isn't sufficient to have this information in the write-up. You can
>
Hi,
The issues are that:
1. we are redefining the scope field
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-3.4.2.1) for
instance. Actually multiple identical scope fields in the flow records,
which is not foreseen in the IPFIX spec.
2. we still depend on the order ... of the scope
Hi Asad,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Arafat, Asad (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)
Envoyé : jeudi 22 septembre 2022 17:29
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc : Arafat, Asad (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)
Objet : Re: comment for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09
Thanks for the explanations
14 matches
Mail list logo
