Hi Jean,
Thanks. I've requested IETF LC on the --09 version.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Quilbeuf
> Sent: 07 November 2022 14:51
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> opsawg-service-assurance-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-
Hi Rob,
Indeed, my assumption was that the value on the wire is the same as the value
passed as substatement on enum. That is indeed to the case, the value on the
wire is the name of the enum.
I pushed a -09 version where the range is extended to -1 to 100 and the
description states that -1 m
Hi Jean,
Sorry for coming back, but I'm still not 100% sure that we are in sync. Please
see further comment and clarification inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Quilbeuf
> Sent: 06 November 2022 15:47
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> opsawg-service-
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the answers.
I think we agree on the final goal and as I understand it is what we have in
-08, so let’s go with that version. More details below.
Thanks,
Jean
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday 6 November 2022 1
Hi Jean,
Just one further question inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Quilbeuf
> Sent: 19 October 2022 01:10
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> opsawg-service-assurance-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-ya
Hi Rob,
Thank you very much for you detailed review.
The latest version should address most of the comments. The diff is here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-08
Answers to some unanswered or added details are inline below.
Thanks Again
Best,
Jean
>
Dear authors,
And here is my corresponding AD review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-07. Again, I found the document to be
well-written, with mostly minor comments/suggestions, bar one question about
the symptom reference.
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 11, sec 3.3. YANG Module
