Dear OPSAWG, I support the adoption of the document. The document might need some refining though.
I miss whether this YANG model is to be used by the router itself or by an orchestrator. Reading the example (which I find very useful), I understand that it is for the orchestrator, however, from the draft, my impression is that it is for the node itself. A few words might be useful for the reader. Regards, Alex > On 16 Jan 2025, at 15:03, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Just a reminder that this CfA is ongoing until Monday. We have only received > two reviews and supports (supports by authors are implicit), and we would > like to hear from more WG members on-list as to whether this work is useful > and if this should be the starting point for modeling scheduled OAM tests. > > Thanks! > > Joe and Benoît > > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > Date: Monday, January 6, 2025 at 13:18 > To: opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > Subject: [OPSAWG]CALL FOR ADOPTION: A YANG Data Model for Network Diagnosis > using Scheduled Sequences of OAM Tests > > Happy New Year, WG. As the IPR poll has concluded (no IPR has been > reported), we’d like to call for adoption of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests/ > . Please reply on-list with comments, support for, or reasons not to adopt > this work as a WG document. > > We will run a two-week adoption call, ending on January 20. > > Joe and Benoit > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
