Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1263550] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap (xml-registry)

LLYTM, approved. On Thu, Jan 5, 2023, at 10:14, David Dong via RT wrote: > Hi Martin and Tim (cc: opsawg WG), > > As the designated experts for the IETF XML ns registry, can you review > the proposed registrations in draft-ietf-opsawg-sap for us? Please see > >

[OPSAWG] [IANA #1263550] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap (xml-registry)

Hi Martin and Tim (cc: opsawg WG), As the designated experts for the IETF XML ns registry, can you review the proposed registrations in draft-ietf-opsawg-sap for us? Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sap/ If these are OK, when the IESG approves the document for

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-05

I approve of this document advancing. Preferably as Proposed Standard since it updates RFC 8520. Scott -- Scott Rose, NIST/CTL scott.r...@nist.gov ph: +1-301-975-8439 GVoice: +1-571-249-3671 From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz Date: Friday, December 9, 2022

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

Hi Med, Thanks for your continuous effort to improve this draft. Help me understand your point of view regarding your comment: Thanks for preparing this revised version. The changes look good. However, and as discussed previously, I was expecting to see s/packet SHOULD be preserved in

Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01

Dear All, I support the adoption of this draft. I have a few very minor comments below. Best, Jean Section 1, paragraph 4: OLD "Since these IPFIX IEs are performance metrics [RFC8911], they must be registered as registered performance metrics [RFC8911] in the "IANA ..." NEW "Since

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12

Med, Thank you very much for the explanation. It would be nice to add the explanation to the draft. Linda From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:06 AM To: Linda Dunbar , gen-...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org , last-c...@ietf.org ,

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

Hi Thomas, Thanks for preparing this revised version. The changes look good. However, and as discussed previously, I was expecting to see s/packet SHOULD be preserved in the IPFIX export according/packet should be preserved in the IPFIX export according. Some minor nits: * Please note that

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12

Hi Linda, Thank you for the review. SAPs can be seen as an abstraction of customer-facing Termination Points (TPs) with specific service provisions. However, a difference between SAPs and TPs is that (1) links are terminated by a single TP, not sets of TPs while (2) an Attachment Circuit

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello Jean As you may have seen by now, I have cleared my DISCUSS into a YES. Bonne année -éric On 03/01/2023, 20:29, "Jean Quilbeuf" mailto:jean.quilb...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Eric, Thanks again for your comments, I tried to address them, the diff is here:

[OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-11: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR Poll on draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry

Dear OPSAWG, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Regards, Alex > On 22 Dec 2022, at 03:55, Tianran Zhou > wrote: > > Hi Authors and Contributors, > > Accompany with the WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all authors and > contributors to confirm on the list. > Please respond