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. By
Hi Rob,
Thank you for the detailed review.
Please see inline.
I let my co-authors further comment.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 4 septembre 2020 19:22
> À : opsawg ; draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-
>
Rob,
FWIW, an updated version with changes to address your review is available
online:
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-05.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework/
Htmlized:
h
Hi Med,
The changes that you have made look good. But I had some comments at the end
of my review email that it doesn't look like you have responded to, or
actioned. Hence, I'm wondering if my review email might have been truncated,
or the end of it missed (from "Also, I ...") onwards (copied
Thanks Rob for quick checking.
Talking with Med, we have agreed to remove that sentence. The change is
reflected in v-05
See v-05
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-framework-05
the diff is:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-model-a
Hi Bob,
Thank you for double checking.
I confirm that your initial AD review message I received was truncated (see
attached).
Will update the draft to take into account the missing part.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
> Envo
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@ietf.org
> Subject: R
