ian
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: 08 April 2021 17:11
To: Dhruv Dhody ; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: L3NM and vpn-common documents
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 07 April 2021
you.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Dhruv
> Dhody
> Envoyé : lundi 5 avril 2021 20:17
> À : Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> Cc : opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: L3NM and vpn-common documents
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 07 April 2021 11:27
One comment on sr-te inline under
Hi Med,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:23 PM
mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi Dhruv,
Thank you for the review.
Focusing on the vpn-common part:
> draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common:
> -
Hi Joe/team,
I reviewed the L3NM document and created issues 266, 267, 268 and 269 to the
GIT repository.
- L3NM: Adding leaf for vlan virtual interface id
- L3NM: Missing BGP update source for BGP clients
- L3NM: BGP client, redistribute connected ipv4 / ipv6 addresses
- L3NM: Multi-hop client
We are concluding the WG LC for this document. All of the IPR responses
have been received (no IPR has been disclosed), and the LC precipitated
a number of comments. The vpn-common module has just been updated, and
there looks to be a pending L3NM update.
As Adrian mentioned, he graciously stepp
12:28
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
Cc : opsawg@ietf.org; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: L3NM and vpn-common documents
Hi Med,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:23 PM
mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi Dhruv,
Thank you for the review.
Focusing on the vpn-commo
Hi Med,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:23 PM wrote:
> Hi Dhruv,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> Focusing on the vpn-common part:
>
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common:
> > - Not sure about the difference between the identity "sr-mpls" and
> > "sr-te".
>
> Med: sr-mpls refers to RFC 8660, which states t
Hi Dhruv,
Thank you for the review.
Focusing on the vpn-common part:
> draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common:
> - Not sure about the difference between the identity "sr-mpls" and
> "sr-te".
Med: sr-mpls refers to RFC 8660, which states that TE is out of scope:
The case where the outgoing lab
Hi WG,
I support publication for both the I-Ds. Some minor comments -
==
General:
- I guess the best practice for a section in the reference is "RFC
: The title, Section X" instead of "Section X of RFC "
- Both YANG modules could use more references (Example multicast part in L2NM)
==
dra
ddresses/ s/route(s)/routes/
>
> ---
>
> 7.6.3
>
> OLD
> 'warning-threshold':a warning
> notification will be triggered'
> A warning notification is triggered when this limit is reached.
> NEW
> 'warning-threshold&#x
rs 2021 20:57
> À : opsawg@ietf.org
> Cc : 'Joe Clarke (jclarke)'
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: [L3NM and] vpn-common documents
>
> Hi,
>
> WGLC review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
>
> I was part of the design team calls that worked out it would be
> possib
node/
---
8.
leaf default-route
s/route(s)/routes/ (twice)
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 22 March 2021 13:32
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: L3NM and vpn-common documents
Hello, WG. One of the action items out of the 110 mee
section also need to say:
Documents that define YANG modules that make use of the YANG module
defined in this document need to fully consider the implications of
read and write access to the objects they use.
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent:
Hello, WG. One of the action items out of the 110 meeting was to put
the L3NM (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-07)
and vpn-common
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-03) documents
through WG LC. The authors have said that these can work independently
14 matches
Mail list logo
