After some more thinking, I prefer option 2 (i.e., keeping the IPFIX work
separate). One of the biggest reasons I think is that it will be easier to
have experts review the draft. I am not strongly opposed to option 3, but it
feels like needlessly combining work.
Joe
From: Evans, John
Date
The following errata report has been verified for RFC9291,
"A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2 VPNs".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7143
--
Status: Verified
Type: Editoria
Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: Ready
I have reviewed the changes from -04 and -05. Thank you for addressing my
previous review comments @
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-secure-tacacs-yang-04-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2025-01-22/,
no further comments.
_
Hi all,
+1
Changes to the IM in the future do not necessarily imply that both the
control/flow parts will be impacted. Even if both were impacted (e.g., simple
augmentations to the CP/flow), nothing prevent to publish those in a single
document even if we go for option 2 now.
Cheers,
Med (as
Hi Mahesh,
Thanks for your feedback.
Given we have the other draft, option 3 is relatively straightforward to do -
albeit it feels a bit unwieldy.
Any other feedback from the group?
Cheers
John
On 21/03/2025, 22:34, "Mahesh Jethanandani" mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote:
[Speaking
Hi,
Small preference for option 2, reason being the unwieldy aspect of option 3.
And having to push 2 documents together is nothing new.
Regards,Reshad.
On Thursday, March 27, 2025 at 02:25:07 PM GMT+1, Evans, John
wrote:
Hi Mahesh,
Thanks for your feedback.
Given we have the other
