Tianran, OPSAWG,
Now that RFC8199 is published, I have two (somewhat associated) points of
high-level feedback on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained:
- The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
"Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model
Hi Carl,
Thank you for the comments. It's a valuable feedback from the author of the
associated RFC.
Although informational, as a working group action, I hope the document can
represent the community consensus.
Cheers,
Tianran
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Moberg (camoberg) [mailt
Hi Carl,
> - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
> "Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined
> in draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained. At the time of the first
> revision of what was
> draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang
Adrian,
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> Hi Carl,
>
>> - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
>>"Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined
>>in draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained. At the time o
Hi Carl,
I'm in the process of updating the document and wanted to let you know what
changes are being made.
>>> - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
>>>"Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined
>>>in draft-ietf-opsawg-se
