Hi Randy,
Yes, I think so. Thanks for diligently following up on the directorate reviews.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush
> Sent: 10 May 2021 17:39
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: Warren Kumari ; Ops Area WG
> Subject: draft-ietf-opsawg-f
> -Original Message-
> From: iesg On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> Sent: 20 April 2021 18:57
> To: Alan DeKok
> Cc: Roman Danyliw ; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> ; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-
> y...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG ; Wubo
> (lana) ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re:
Hi Francesca,
Thanks for your review and comments. Happy to discuss this in today's telechat
if that helps. I have also provided some comments inline. My comments are
also somewhat inline with my comments to Roman's discuss, so perhaps worth
seeing my reply to Roman if you have not already
Hi Roman,
Thanks for the review. I have chipped in a couple of comments on your discuss
concerns below.
> -Original Message-
> From: iesg On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw via
> Datatracker
> Sent: 19 April 2021 23:08
> To: The IESG
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; Joe Clarke (jclarke) ; opsawg-
>
Hi Randy,
Thanks for the updates.
Just waiting for confirmation from you/Warren that you are okay with my doc
status plan and then I'll send it to IETF LC.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush
> Sent: 19 April 2021 14:41
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>
Hi Randy,
Inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush
> Sent: 13 April 2021 18:44
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: Ops Area WG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-
> geofeeds@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-04
>
>
Hi Randy,
Thanks. Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush
> Sent: 12 April 2021 22:37
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: Ops Area WG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-
> geofeeds@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-ge
case this step would succeed.
Perhaps the explanation text needs a bit more clarity (that's presuming that my
explanation is on the right track).
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> Sent: 12 April 2021 18:37
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; RFC E
5 October 2020 20:27
> To: war...@kumari.net; cdo...@juniper.net; war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) ; henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de; Joe Clarke
> (jclarke) ; zhoutian...@huawei.com
> Cc: bortzmeyer+i...@nic.fr; opsawg@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [T
5 October 2020 20:25
> To: war...@kumari.net; cdo...@juniper.net; war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) ; henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de; Joe Clarke
> (jclarke) ; zhoutian...@huawei.com
> Cc: bortzmeyer+i...@nic.fr; opsawg@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [T
5 October 2020 20:21
> To: war...@kumari.net; cdo...@juniper.net; war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) ; henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de; Joe Clarke
> (jclarke) ; zhoutian...@huawei.com
> Cc: bortzmeyer+i...@nic.fr; opsawg@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [T
Hi,
Sorry for the delayed AD review.
Whilst I regard this document is useful, and a good thing (tm), I have a couple
of concerns about the exact relationship between this document (std's track)
and to RFC 8805, that is informational.
Main comments:
1. Specifically, I think that it would be
Hi Bo,
Thanks for applying the markups.
I've issued the IESG ballot for this draft.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Wubo (lana)
> Sent: 09 April 2021 02:53
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; tom petch
> ; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha.
Hi Bo,
Please can you post an updated version with the comments from Tom/Joe addressed
and then I can get this onto the next Telechat in 2 weeks' time.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Wubo (lana)
> Sent: 23 March 2021 10:56
> To: tom petch ; Joe Clarke
I've read this document and support its adoption.
Given that this document is only 6 pages long (really only 2 pages of
substantial content) I hope that this document can move through the WG quickly.
Thanks,
Rob
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: 24 March 2021 06:23
To:
Hi Bo,
Thanks for addressing my comments, and your work on this document. I've now
requested IETF LC on this document.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Wubo (lana)
> Sent: 12 March 2021 10:31
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg ;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-ya
Thanks Bo.
Perhaps make the choice description:
"Encryption mechanism between TACACS+ client and server".
Let me know when you are done, and I'll start the IETF LC.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Wubo (lana)
> Sent: 11 March 2021 10:46
> To: Rob Wil
Hi Bo,
Sorry, this doc slipped off my radar.
I've provided comments inline, but I think that it is only the "shared-secret"
part that needs to be resolved.
> -Original Message-
> From: Wubo (lana)
> Sent: 19 September 2020 08:47
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
One correction. I had intended the LSR WG rather than the LSVR WG.
Regards,
Rob
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: 06 January 2021 09:37
To: Chenshuanglong ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: Lizhenbin ; Guyunan ;
chenhua...@gsta.com
Subject: RE: IETF 109 - OPSAWG presentation
https://tools.ietf.org/html
filtering capabilities.
Regards,
Rob
From: Chenshuanglong
Sent: 06 January 2021 08:41
To: opsawg@ietf.org; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: Lizhenbin ; Guyunan ;
chenhua...@gsta.com
Subject: IETF 109 - OPSAWG presentation
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-00
hi all,
I
2 October 2020 18:19
> To: IETF Announcement List
> Cc: iot...@ietf.org; war...@kumari.net; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
>
> Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: IOTOPS -- IOT Operations
>
> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
>
> List address:
Because the charter is currently in internal IESG review, then please may I
request that we hold off from public discussion just yet.
Given that some aspects of this proposed WG are slightly unusual (it has a MOPS
like element to it), then we need to clear that with the IESG first.
If we
Hi Med,
Thanks for the final updates. I've requested IETF LC on -06.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
> Sent: 21 September 2020 09:12
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework@iet
Thanks all for raising/confirming.
Now marked as verified.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Eliot Lear
> Sent: 24 September 2020 06:12
> To: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> Cc: RFC Errata System ; Ralph Droms
> ; droma...@gmail.com; war...@kumari.net; Rob
Hi Bo,
Thanks for addressing my previous comments.
Please see inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Wubo (lana)
> Sent: 29 August 2020 09:40
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg ;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ops
Dear all,
I am happy to announce that Henk Birkholz has agreed to serve as a third OPSAWG
WG chair to help with the current workload and gain some chair experience.
Please welcome Henk to OPSAWG.
Kind regards,
Rob
___
OPSAWG mailing list
Apologies for the lengthy delay in performing the AD review.
I found that this document to be well written so I would like to thank the
authors, WG, and doc shepherd for that. My more significant comments relate to
questions on the scope of this architecture.
More significant comments:
1.
Ok, my bad. It seems that I had already done an AD review of this document :-)
Bo, there may be some additional comments that you would like to consider below
in your -08 update.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Sent: 20 August 2
Hi,
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-07. Sorry that it has
been a little while in coming.
Thank you for this document, I believe that it is in good shape. I've given my
slightly more significant comments first, followed by some editorial comments.
COMMENTS:
"Section
Hi Joe,
Review comments also attached as txt file.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> Sent: 10 July 2020 23:15
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang@ietf.org; opsawg
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-
Apologies for the delay, but please find my AD review of the TACACS+ YANG
module draft.
I would like to thank the authors for their work on this document, and the WG
for providing reviews and input in this document.
I believe that the document is in good shape but propose some minor changes to
[With AD hat on]
Hi,
I was really hoping that there would be more support for adopting this work in
OPSAWG, given it covers both YANG and IPFIX it does seem like the correct home
for it.
In general, I am keen that IETF continues to flesh out and improve YANG models
for the protocols
Hi,
Thank you for this work. I found this document informative and both easy to
read and understand. I have a one question on this document and a few nits
listed below.
My main question concerns this sentence in section 3.1: "[I-D.gutmann-scep] is
one method which vendors may want to
Hi,
This document seems to define a device profile for a uCPE devices (e.g. section
5 lists a set of YANG modules), along with a YANG module defining some extra
properties for an LNE.
I didn't know whether you are aware of the work in NETMOD for defining YANG
packages
Hi Warren,
Please can you approve this one as well.
Many thanks!
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of IETF Meeting Session
> Request Tool
> Sent: 24 March 2020 14:26
> To: session-requ...@ietf.org
> Cc: ibagd...@gmail.com; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
>
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
