On 11/22/19, 10:03 AM, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" wrote:
> - Freeform performance penalty (points?) - finger in the wind numbers
(make sure to emphasize that it is an estimate) - include things like other
resources used (CAM entries, memory, etc?). Number would only be relative to
the device
> - Freeform performance penalty (points?) - finger in the wind numbers (make
> sure to emphasize that it is an estimate) - include things like other
> resources used (CAM entries, memory, etc?). Number would only be relative to
> the device itself.
I had to leave around this discussion, but
Thanks to those who came to the side session and have otherwise provided
feedback. I took notes on the feedback from that meeting combined with the
main presentation and other notes:
- Should incorporate the "why not other stuff" into the draft
- Compare/contrast versus RFC 5476
- How are the
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew A
> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. November 2019 12:11
> To: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: [OPSAWG] IETF 106 Discussion about draft-gray-sampled-streaming -
> room moved
>
> After a couple bits of feedback, I hav
etmod-yang-node-tags-00
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tao-netconf-notif-node-tag-capabilities-00
Feel free to comment on it.
-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Gray, Andrew A
发送时间: 2019年11月20日 12:11
收件人: opsawg@ietf.org
主题: [OPSAWG] IETF 106 Discussion about draft
After a couple bits of feedback, I have moved the session to be in the Padang
room at 9:00am to avoid conflict with the morning session.
On 11/20/19, 11:59 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Gray, Andrew A"
wrote:
Following the presentation of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gray-sampled-st
